in the grading by OptoMize (most left), and the scoring used for the purpose of this study (most right).
For analysis in this study, referable DR is defined as participants with preproliferative (graded as R2), proliferative retinopathy (R3) and/or maculopathy (M1). Referable DR relates to those who need to be referred to the hospital eye service for further assessment or treatment. The retinal images were considered ungradable if they are unclear or unassessable and they were scored as 8 for analysis.
Grades in OptoMIze Criteria description Scores used in this study
R0 M0 No DR present 0
R1 M0 Background DR, no maculopathy 1
R1 M1 Maculopathy with/without background DR 2
R2 M0 Pre-proliferative DR, no maculopathy 3
R2 M1 Pre-proliferative
…show more content…
Category Description
1 Patients who were not referred, just invited for routine screening next year (Annual Recall)
2 Patients who were referred to Hospital Eye Service due to DR
3 Patients who were referred to Hospital Eye Service or GP due to other non-DR eye disease (e.g. cataract, glaucoma, AMD)
4 Patients referred to digital surveillance or slit lamp exam for further assessment and monitoring.
5 Patients who missed the annual screening because they were under care of ophthalmologist.
6 Patients who did not attend the screening for undefined reason.
7 Patients who were out of the screening programmes as they opted-out / inactivated annual screening / moved to other area / no longer diabetic.
Table 2.3 Scoring guide for DR grading outcome
2.10 Statistical methods
All data retrieved from the screening database were entered into an Excel spreadsheet for analysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS Version 23 (SPSS IBM Inc, Chicago USA). Significance was taken as P<0.05 unless otherwise stated.
Descriptive analyses were undertaken using Microsoft Excel and SPSS to describe the study population and patterns of DR. Participant demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline were summarized by group using means and SDs, medians or percentages accordingly. The normality of data was checked using Shapiro-Wilk test on DR grades, outcomes and visual acuities for all years from 2008 to 2015. All data were not
The records have been reviewed. The member is an adult male with a birth date of 05/16/1973. He has a diagnosis of bilateral degenerative myopia. His treating provider, Amy Camarota, OD, recommended treatment options on 03/18/2016, one of which was scleral lenses, which the member opted and paid for on 04/01/2016.
The degree of freedoms was 9 and the significance level was 0.05. For these conditions, the chi-square value must be above 16.92. The test statistic provided no convincing evidence that the
I have recently began to shadow Dr. Richards, an ophthalmologist. I have always had an interest in medical care relating to the eyes since I have developed a good relationship with my employer, Dr. Thomas.
By looking at the object that I chose to use for this assignment I can see significant differences in each photograph. Although I have two copies of the same image it is clear to see that the raw file makes the image look duller than the jpeg. The jpeg brings out the brightness within the image because the jpeg automatically edits the image when it was taken whereas with raw files do not. The visual differences I see when looking at each copy is with the raw original image I can see that the pumpkin looks flatter and has less contrast. Whereas when looking at the jpeg original image the whites are more pronounced as well as you can see the roundness and shape of the pumpkin. It seems to look like jpeg has a higher contrast and saturation compared
Comprehensive Eye Evaluation: The staff here provide dedicated assessment of visual acuity, eye alignment, examination of the eyelid, peripheral
Within the study, the demographics of the participants were made available, including gender, age, race and ethnicity, marital status, and educational and employment status. Special consideration and statistical analysis was conducted for those in the High
This was population based study of 22 year screening period and considered as a main strength of the study which makes it successful.
GLLH come once a month to assist patients with receive glasses. They provide clients with one complimentary pair of glasses to clients. If GLLH has seen a client before within the past three years, the patient would be charged a beginning rate of $35. Each year a person needs to have an eye exam, on average, most people go every two years. Waiting for eye exams can be harmful to an individual vision, most times the individual’s eyes worsen. Unfortunately, a few organizations that are in partnership with BMDC that they barely need. More clients are being referred to the BMDC. BMDC does give their patient referrals; however, most of them are not partners of the
| Based on explicit knowledge and this can be easy and fast to capture and analyse.Results can be generalised to larger populationsCan be repeated – therefore good test re-test reliability and validityStatistical analyses and interpretation are
The study design was a cross sectional survey design and was approved by Institutional Review Board of Columbia University Medical Center.
The Criteria Document, that was published by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2006, studied and assessed the relevant scientific information that had become available since 1996. The document concluded that controlled human and animal studies provided clear evidence of causality for associations between ozone exposure and relatively small declines in lung function as seen in numerous recent studies.
Methods and Materials: This cross-sectional study was done from May 2010 to November 2011 after
The frequent visits to the surgery for ordering and to check the accuracy of prescription
The data are collected from observation of over 100 patients’ visits, 50 of which were observed and audio taped. The research questions that are asked by Davidson are:
The objective of this chapter is to describe the procedures used in the analysis of the data and present the main findings. It also presents the different tests performed to help choose the appropriate model for the study. The chapter concludes by providing thorough statistical interpretation of the findings.