Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorChalk, D
dc.contributor.authorPitt, M
dc.contributor.authorVaidya, B
dc.contributor.authorStein, K
dc.date.accessioned2019-05-09T11:07:06Z
dc.date.issued2012-07-23
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVE: In the U.K., people with diabetes are typically screened for retinopathy annually. However, diabetic retinopathy sometimes has a slow progression rate. We developed a simulation model to predict the likely impact of screening patients with type 2 diabetes, who have not been diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy, every 2 years rather than annually. We aimed to assess whether or not such a policy would increase the proportion of patients who developed retinopathy-mediated vision loss compared with the current policy, along with the potential cost savings that could be achieved. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We developed a model that simulates the progression of retinopathy in type 2 diabetic patients, and the screening of these patients, to predict rates of retinopathy-mediated vision loss. We populated the model with data obtained from a National Health Service Foundation Trust. We generated comparative 15-year forecasts to assess the differences between the current and proposed screening policies. RESULTS The simulation model predicts that implementing a 2-year screening interval for type 2 diabetic patients without evidence of diabetic retinopathy does not increase their risk of vision loss. Furthermore, we predict that this policy could reduce screening costs by ~25%. CONCLUSIONS: Screening people with type 2 diabetes, who have not yet developed retinopathy, every 2 years, rather than annually, is a safe and cost-effective strategy. Our findings support those of other studies, and we therefore recommend a review of the current National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for diabetic retinopathy screening implemented in the U.K.en_GB
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR)en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 35 (8), pp. 1663 - 1668en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.2337/dc11-2282
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/37009
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherAmerican Diabetes Associationen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566535en_GB
dc.rights© 2012 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.en_GB
dc.subjectDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2en_GB
dc.subjectDiabetic Retinopathyen_GB
dc.subjectFemaleen_GB
dc.subjectHumansen_GB
dc.subjectMaleen_GB
dc.subjectMass Screeningen_GB
dc.subjectTime Factorsen_GB
dc.titleCan the retinal screening interval be safely increased to 2 years for type 2 diabetic patients without retinopathy?en_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2019-05-09T11:07:06Z
exeter.place-of-publicationUnited Statesen_GB
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available from American Diabetes Association via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.identifier.eissn1935-5548
dc.identifier.journalDiabetes Careen_GB
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2012-04-09
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2012-04-09
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2019-05-09T11:05:27Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2019-05-09T11:07:11Z
refterms.panelAen_GB


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2012 by the American Diabetes Association.
Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2012 by the American Diabetes Association. Readers may use this article as long as the work is properly cited, the use is educational and not for profit, and the work is not altered. See http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for details.