|
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)
| |
