Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Mar;21(3):560-568.
doi: 10.1111/dom.13552. Epub 2018 Oct 30.

Personalized risk-based screening for diabetic retinopathy: A multivariate approach versus the use of stratification rules

Affiliations

Personalized risk-based screening for diabetic retinopathy: A multivariate approach versus the use of stratification rules

Marta García-Fiñana et al. Diabetes Obes Metab. 2019 Mar.

Abstract

Aims: To evaluate our proposed multivariate approach to identify patients who will develop sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) within a 1-year screen interval, and explore the impact of simple stratification rules on prediction.

Materials and methods: A 7-year dataset (2009-2016) from people with diabetes (PWD) was analysed using a novel multivariate longitudinal discriminant approach. Level of diabetic retinopathy, assessed from routine digital screening photographs of both eyes, was jointly modelled using clinical data collected over time. Simple stratification rules based on retinopathy level were also applied and compared with the multivariate discriminant approach.

Results: Data from 13 103 PWD (49 520 screening episodes) were analysed. The multivariate approach accurately predicted whether patients developed STDR or not within 1 year from the time of prediction in 84.0% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI] 80.4-89.7), compared with 56.7% (95% CI 55.5-58.0) and 79.7% (95% CI 78.8-80.6) achieved by the two stratification rules. While the stratification rules detected up to 95.2% (95% CI 92.2-97.6) of the STDR cases (sensitivity) only 55.6% (95% CI 54.5-56.7) of patients who did not develop STDR were correctly identified (specificity), compared with 85.4% (95% CI 80.4-89.7%) and 84.0% (95% CI 80.7-87.6%), respectively, achieved by the multivariate risk model.

Conclusions: Accurate prediction of progression to STDR in PWD can be achieved using a multivariate risk model whilst also maintaining desirable specificity. While simple stratification rules can achieve good levels of sensitivity, the present study indicates that their lower specificity (high false-positive rate) would therefore necessitate a greater frequency of eye examinations.

Keywords: cohort study; diabetic retinopathy; observational study; primary care.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Boxplots for the predicted probability of developing sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) within 1 year when applying our multivariate discriminant model (left panel). The boxplots display the distribution of the predicted probabilities (1.5 × interquartile range below the first quartile, first quartile, median, third quartile and 1.5 × interquartile range above the third quartile). Values greater than 1.5 × interquartile range above the third quartile (or lower than 1.5 × interquartile range below the first quartile) are shown separately as plotted points (outliers). Receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curve (right panel) with sensitivity (85.4%) and specificity (84.0%) illustrated by the green dot
Figure 2
Figure 2
Boxplots for the predicted probability of developing sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) within 1 year for patients with no diabetic retinopathy (DR) at the time of prediction (left), mild non‐proliferative DR (NPDR)/background DR (BDR) in one eye (middle), and mild NPDR/BDR in both eyes (right)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Prediction accuracy of the two‐episode stratification rule versus our personalized risk model

References

    1. Wong TY, Mwamburi M, Klein R, et al. Rates of progression in diabetic retinopathy during different time periods: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Diabetes Care. 2009;32:2307‐2313. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Scanlon PH. The English national screening programme for sight‐threatening diabetic retinopathy. J Med Screen. 2008;15:1‐4. - PubMed
    1. Klein R, Knudtson MD, Lee KE, Gangnon R, Klein BE. The Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy: XXII the twenty‐five‐year progression of retinopathy in persons with type 1 diabetes. Ophthalmology. 2008;115:1859‐1868. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Javitt JC, Aiello LP. Cost‐effectiveness of detecting and treating diabetic retinopathy. Ann Intern Med. 1996;124:164‐169. - PubMed
    1. ETDRS . Photocoagulation for diabetic macular edema. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study report number 1. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study research group. Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103:1796‐1806. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms