Table 6 Optometrists’ sensitivity and specificity for identifying diabetic retinopathy as reported in the current study and previous studies
Sensitivity (95%CI) | Specificity (95%CIn | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Study | Retinal examination method | ADR | STDR | ADR | STDR |
Our study (2011) | |||||
Community optometrists | Image evaluation of digital images | 67 (62 to 72) | 84 (80 to 89) | ||
Harvey et al (2006) | |||||
Optometrists in a screening program | Not available | 80 (71 to 89) | 99 (98 to 100) | ||
Olson et al (2003) | |||||
Specially trained optometrists | Dilated slit-lamp examination | 73 (52 to 88) | 90 (87 to 93) | ||
Schmid et al (2002) | |||||
Community optometrists | Ophthalmoscopy (free choice) | 92 (84 to 100) | 94 (90 to 98) | ||
Image evaluation of retinal slides | 94 (90 to 98) | 97 (92 to 100) | |||
Hulme et al (2001) | |||||
Specially trained optometrists | Dilated slit-lamp examination | 72 | 87 | 77 | 91 |
Prasad et al (2001) | |||||
Specially trained optometrists | Dilated slit-lamp examination | 66 (65 to 67) | 76 (70 to 81) | 97 (97 to 98) | 95 (95 to 96) |
Gibbins et al (1998) | |||||
Community optometrists | Image evaluation of 35 mm slides | 88 (83 to 93) | 91 (79 to 98) | 68 (58 to 68) | 83 (79 to 87) |
Specially trained optometrist | Image evaluation of 35 mm slides | 86 (81 to 91) | 97 (90 to 100) | 89 (85 to 93) | 87 (84 to 91) |
Buxton et al (1991) | |||||
Community optometrists | Image evaluation of Polaroid images | 48 (26 to 69) | 94 (92 to 97) | ||