Interobserver agreement between primary graders and an expert grader in the Bristol and Weston diabetic retinopathy screening programme: A quality assurance audit

Diabetic Medicine

Volumn 26, Issue 8, 2009, Pages 820-823

  Patra, S ^a   Gomm, E M W ^b   MacIpe, M ^a   Bailey, C ^a  

^a BRISTOL EYE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Diabetic screening; Grader; Interobserver agreement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DIABETIC RETINOPATHY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL AUDIT; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUALITY CONTROL; SCREENING TEST;

DIABETIC RETINOPATHY; ENGLAND; HUMANS; IMAGE ENHANCEMENT; MASS SCREENING; OBSERVER VARIATION; PHOTOGRAPHY; QUALITY CONTROL; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 68149107508     PISSN: 07423071     EISSN: 14645491     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-5491.2009.02767.x     Document Type: Article

References (7)

1. UK National Screening Committee. Essential elements in developing a diabetic retinopathy screening programme. 2007. Workbook 4.2. Available at http://www.retinalscreening.nhs.uk/pages/ Last accessed 6 June 2009.
2. Scanlon PH, Malhotra R, Thomas G, Foy C, Kirkpatrick JN, Lewis-Barned N et al. The effectiveness of screening for diabetic retinopathy by digital imaging photography and technician ophthalmoscopy. Diabet Med 2003 20 : 467 474. (Pubitemid 36776007)
3. Maberley D, Cruess AF, Barile G, Slakter J. Digital photographic screening for diabetic retinopathy in the James Bay Cree. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2002 9 : 169 178. (Pubitemid 34664963)
4. Ruamviboonsuk P, Teerasuwanajak K, Tiensuwan M, Yuttitham K. Interobserver agreement in the interpretation of single-field digital fundus images for diabetic retinopathy screening. Ophthalmology 2006 113 : 826 832.
5. Rudnisky CJ, Tennant MTS, Weis E, Ting A, Hinz BJ, Greve MD. Web-based grading of compressed stereoscopic digital photography versus standard slide film photography for the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmology 2007 114 : 1748 1754.
6. Tavares SB, Alves de Sousa NL, Manrique EJ, Pinheiro de Albuquerque ZB, Zeferino LC, Amaral RG. Comparison of the performance of rapid prescreening, 10% random review, and clinical risk criteria as methods of internal quality control in cervical cytopathology. Cancer 2008 114 : 165 170.
7. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: The Kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005 37 : 360 363.