No abstract

Ultra-widefield fundus imaging (UWFI) is a relatively new technology capable of capturing 200° images of the retina. Since vision changes can be irreversible in diabetic retinopathy (DR), recognition of prognostic biomarkers in the peripheral retina may prove invaluable toward optimizing the management and reducing the societal burden of this blinding disease. Following a bibliographic review using Pubmed, OVID Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, the current review systematically examined 13 studies that compared UWFI to conventional screening techniques such as seven standard field (7SF) Early Treatment In Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) and non-mydriatic multifield fundus photography (NMFP), as well as their scientific level of evidence. Overall, UWFI had good agreement with 7SF ETDRS and NMFP, and moderate agreement with dilated fundus examination. Seven additional studies were examined that considered the significance of peripheral lesions found on UWFI. These studies demonstrated that UWFI captured additional DR pathology in the peripheral retina that may not be evident if evaluation is limited to the posterior pole and may be relevant to patient outcomes. Future directions include but are not limited to the potential of UWFI to track the progression of DR with treatment.

The purpose of the current study is to examine how nonmodifiable sociodemographic, disease, appointment, management, and survey factors correlate with provider rating. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study conducted on 29 857 patient Clinician and Group Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems surveys collected from January 2017 to January 2019 at a tertiary eye center. We included surveys of patients aged 18 years or older, who answered at least 4 of 6 subfield questions, and completed the survey within 90 days of the appointment. The main outcome was the odds of receiving top box score (TBS) of 10/10 on the survey question regarding overall provider rating. The results showed that the variables with higher odds of TBS included higher overall appointment attendance (odds ratio [OR]: 2.66 [95% CI: 1.23-5.75], P = .013); older patient age (OR 2.44 [95% CI: 2.08-2.87], P < .001]; higher percentage of survey questions completed (OR: 2.02 [95% CI: 1.79-2.27], P < .001); better best corrected visual acuity (OR: 1.85 [95% CI: 1.3-2.64], P = .001); optometry clinic visit (OR: 1.25 [95% CI: 1.15-1.36], P < .001); having procedures (OR: 1.19 [95% CI: 1.04-1.36], P = .013), surgery scheduled (OR: 1.18 [95% CI: 1.03-1.36], P = .020], or refraction done (OR: 1.16 [95% CI: 1.08-1.25], P < .001); being seen by male providers (OR: 1.11 [95% CI: 1.04-1.17], P = .001); and having additional eye testing performed (OR: 1.06 [95% CI: 1.00-1.13], P = .048). Variables associated with lower odds of TBS included longer time to complete survey (OR: 0.42 [95% CI: 0.3-0.58], P = .001); new patient encounter (OR: 0.62 [95% CI: 0.58-0.65], P < .001); and glaucoma (OR: 0.66 [95% CI: 0.59-0.75], P < .001), cornea (OR: 0.79 [95% CI: 0.71-0.87], P < .001), or comprehensive clinic visits (OR: 0.86 [95% CI: 0.79-0.94], P < .001). Thus, nonmodifiable factors may affect the provider rating, and these factors should be studied further and accounted for when interpreting the results of patient experience surveys.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To analyze the impact of time to treatment with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) for patients with macular edema (ME) secondary to retinal vein occlusions (RVO) in routine clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-five eyes with ME secondary to RVO were identified. Patients were divided into initiation of anti-VEGF treatment at 28 days or fewer after symptom onset (Group A), between 28 and 84 days (Group B), and 84 days or more (Group C). RESULTS: A significant central subfield thickness (CST) decrease at 12 months was observed in Groups A, B, and C (−184.14 µm, −204.55 µm, and −170.71 µm, respectively; P < .001). At 12 months, Groups A and B showed significant BCVA improvement (19.14 and 21.11, respectively; P ≤ .001), whereas Group C showed no significant improvement from baseline (4.01; P < .28). CONCLUSIONS: Anatomical response as measured by CST did not differ between groups, whereas delays in treatment resulted in smaller BCVA improvement with anti-VEGF treatment. [ Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina . 2018;49:832–837.]