Can the retinal screening interval be safely increased to 2 years for type 2 diabetic patients without retinopathy?
dc.contributor.author | Chalk, D | |
dc.contributor.author | Pitt, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Vaidya, B | |
dc.contributor.author | Stein, K | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-05-09T11:07:06Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2012-07-23 | |
dc.description.abstract | OBJECTIVE: 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.sponsorship | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) | en_GB |
dc.identifier.citation | Vol. 35 (8), pp. 1663 - 1668 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.2337/dc11-2282 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/37009 | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | American Diabetes Association | en_GB |
dc.relation.url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22566535 | en_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.subject | Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 | en_GB |
dc.subject | Diabetic Retinopathy | en_GB |
dc.subject | Female | en_GB |
dc.subject | Humans | en_GB |
dc.subject | Male | en_GB |
dc.subject | Mass Screening | en_GB |
dc.subject | Time Factors | en_GB |
dc.title | Can the retinal screening interval be safely increased to 2 years for type 2 diabetic patients without retinopathy? | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2019-05-09T11:07:06Z | |
exeter.place-of-publication | United States | en_GB |
dc.description | This is the final version. Available from American Diabetes Association via the DOI in this record | en_GB |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1935-5548 | |
dc.identifier.journal | Diabetes Care | en_GB |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2012-04-09 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2012-04-09 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2019-05-09T11:05:27Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | VoR | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2019-05-09T11:07:11Z | |
refterms.panel | A | en_GB |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
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.