Accuracy of diagnosis of pterygium by optometrists and general practitioners in Australia

Abstract

Background It was the author's (LWH) observation that pterygium was frequently misdiagnosed by general practitioners that led to this study. The aim was to identify the rate of misdiagnosis of pterygium by optometrists and general practitioners based upon assessing referral accuracy to a single ophthalmologist (LWH). Methods This study involved a prospective case series from 25 March 2015 to 18 December 2018 in a tertiary referral practice specialising in pterygium. The accuracy of diagnosis of pterygium, based upon the content of the clinical referral, was undertaken for optometrists and general practitioners. The benchmark for diagnostic accuracy was the diagnosis made by the author (LWH) during a consultation in person by the author (LWH) using a hand‐light examination and confirmed by slitlamp examination. Results A total of 1,511 consecutive patients were included in the study with 90/549 incorrectly diagnosed (16 per cent) by general practitioners and 14/962 (1.4 per cent) by optometrists. General practitioners were 13.28 times more likely to incorrectly diagnose a pterygium than optometrists (95% CI 7.48–23.57). Almost exclusively, the incorrect diagnosis made by general practitioners was naming a pinguecula, a pterygium. The same misdiagnosis was made by optometrists but far less frequently. Conclusion General practitioners misdiagnosed pterygium far more often than optometrists which may reflect a reduction in training in eye health.

UV Protection in the Cornea: Failure and Rescue

“…These vascularized, fibrotic degenerations continuously advance across the cornea over time [ 67 ]. It is well documented across several ethnicities, locations, and age-groups that the primary risk factor of pterygia is UV [ 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 ]. The incidence is generally higher for men than for women (14.5% vs. 13.6%), and unilateral cases were more prevalent than bilateral cases [ 74 ].…”