FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W966168316> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W966168316 endingPage "998" @default.
• W966168316 startingPage "998" @default.
• W966168316 abstract "Editor—We have concerns about the National Screening Committee's recommendations for a risk reduction programme for diabetic retinopathy, in which digital photography is the screening method of choice.1 The gold standard for fundus examination is slit lamp biomicroscopy performed by an experienced ophthalmologist; this is the standard on which treatment decisions are made. The same technique used by other trained professionals in a screening environment duplicates the gold standard.Slit lamp biomicroscopy has advantages over fundus photography. It offers a stereoscopic view, thereby detecting diffuse macular oedema that is missed by photography. The entire post-equatorial retina can be examined with this technique, whereas even seven-field photography misses about 17% of the retina.2The technical failure rate of photography is high and has been reported to be 14.4%, compared with only 2.2% for ophthalmoscopy in the same group.3 In our district the technical failure rate of slit lamp biomicroscopy is 0.2%.4 Over-reading by trained graders has been reported in studies of photographic screening.2 One study looked at the performance of retina specialists compared with a standardised reading centre and found an overall agreement of only 74%, concluding that there was a significant discrepancy in concordance.5The main reason for choosing digital photography seems to be the ease of audit, with no need for repeat examinations. However, the high technical failure rate of photography means that more re-examinations will be needed with this technique; a 5-10% re-examination rate for audit purposes in an ophthalmoscopic screening system compares favourably with a 15% re-examination rate because of technical failure in a photographic screening system.3,4We also have concerns about the cost of the different screening systems. A new national training infrastructure will be needed to provide accredited training for photographic screeners, whereas integrating retinopathy screening skills into the training of optometrists would be fairly easy. Thus training and accreditation costs would be lower for screening by optometrists.The main cost of this screening is the fee paid to the optometrists. The national committee estimates this at £20, but in our district it is £15. This alone would reduce the overall cost by £60 000 a year for a programme that had 12 000 primary screen events a year. Most optometrists already have the necessary equipment, and thus the cost of new equipment for screening would be unlikely to be great." @default.
• W966168316 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W966168316 creator A5003878167 @default.
• W966168316 creator A5014119730 @default.
• W966168316 creator A5051075642 @default.
• W966168316 creator A5083943689 @default.
• W966168316 date "2001-10-27" @default.
• W966168316 modified "2023-10-14" @default.
• W966168316 title "National screening programme for diabetic retinopathy" @default.
• W966168316 cites W193642471 @default.
• W966168316 cites W1982722705 @default.
• W966168316 cites W2018720369 @default.
• W966168316 cites W2072291797 @default.
• W966168316 cites W2415538292 @default.
• W966168316 doi "https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7319.998" @default.
• W966168316 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/1121518" @default.
• W966168316 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11700632" @default.
• W966168316 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W966168316 type Work @default.
• W966168316 sameAs 966168316 @default.
• W966168316 citedByCount "11" @default.
• W966168316 countsByYear W9661683162012 @default.
• W966168316 countsByYear W9661683162016 @default.
• W966168316 countsByYear W9661683162019 @default.
• W966168316 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W966168316 hasAuthorship W966168316A5003878167 @default.
• W966168316 hasAuthorship W966168316A5014119730 @default.
• W966168316 hasAuthorship W966168316A5051075642 @default.
• W966168316 hasAuthorship W966168316A5083943689 @default.
• W966168316 hasBestOaLocation W9661683162 @default.
• W966168316 hasConcept C118487528 @default.
• W966168316 hasConcept C119767625 @default.
• W966168316 hasConcept C134018914 @default.
• W966168316 hasConcept C2522767166 @default.
• W966168316 hasConcept C2779829184 @default.
• W966168316 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W966168316 hasConcept C555293320 @default.
• W966168316 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W966168316 hasConceptScore W966168316C118487528 @default.
• W966168316 hasConceptScore W966168316C119767625 @default.
• W966168316 hasConceptScore W966168316C134018914 @default.
• W966168316 hasConceptScore W966168316C2522767166 @default.
• W966168316 hasConceptScore W966168316C2779829184 @default.
• W966168316 hasConceptScore W966168316C41008148 @default.
• W966168316 hasConceptScore W966168316C555293320 @default.
• W966168316 hasConceptScore W966168316C71924100 @default.
• W966168316 hasIssue "7319" @default.
• W966168316 hasLocation W9661683161 @default.
• W966168316 hasLocation W9661683162 @default.
• W966168316 hasLocation W9661683163 @default.
• W966168316 hasLocation W9661683164 @default.
• W966168316 hasOpenAccess W966168316 @default.
• W966168316 hasPrimaryLocation W9661683161 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W1992007649 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W2003316325 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W2348573424 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W2352634490 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W2982442175 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W3080453316 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W3203337527 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W4206942858 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W4220777870 @default.
• W966168316 hasRelatedWork W4244634705 @default.
• W966168316 hasVolume "323" @default.
• W966168316 isParatext "false" @default.
• W966168316 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W966168316 magId "966168316" @default.
• W966168316 workType "article" @default.