Advertisement

 

 

A randomised trial of non-mydriatic ultra-wide field retinal imaging versus usual care to screen for diabetic eye disease: rationale and protocol for the Clearsight trial.

A randomised trial of non-mydriatic ultra-wide field retinal imaging versus usual care to screen for diabetic eye disease: rationale and protocol for the Clearsight trial.
Author Information (click to view)

Liu SL, Mahon LW, Klar NS, Schulz DC, Gonder JR, Hramiak IM, Mahon JL,


Liu SL, Mahon LW, Klar NS, Schulz DC, Gonder JR, Hramiak IM, Mahon JL, (click to view)

Liu SL, Mahon LW, Klar NS, Schulz DC, Gonder JR, Hramiak IM, Mahon JL,

Advertisement
Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

BMJ open 2017 08 037(8) e015382 doi 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015382
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Suboptimal screening for diabetic eye disease is a major cause of preventable vision loss. Screening barriers include mydriasis and the extra time patients need to attend dedicated eye screening appointments. In the Clearsight trial, we are testing whether screening by non-mydriatic ultra-wide field (NM UWF) imaging on the day patients attend their diabetes outpatient clinic visit improves detection of clinically important eye disease compared with usual screening.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS
Patients with diabetes due for a screening eye exam by the 2013 Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) practice guidelines are being randomised to on-site screening by NM UWF imaging on the day of their clinic visit or to usual screening where, per CDA guidelines, they are encouraged to arrange an exam by an optometrist. The primary outcome is actionable eye disease (AED) based on a need for referral to ophthalmology and/or increased ocular surveillance. The primary analysis will use an intention-to-screen approach that compares the proportions of detected AED between on-site and usual screening groups under a superiority hypothesis in favour of on-site screening. With 740 randomised participants, the study will have 80% power to detect ≥5% absolute increase in the AED rate among on-site screening versus usual screening participants. This difference translates into a number-needed-to-screen by on-site screening of 20 to detect 1 additional person with AED.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION
The protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Western University. The findings of the trial will be disseminated directly to participants and through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02579837 (registered 16 October 2015).

PROTOCOL ISSUE DATE
18 November 2015.

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

3 × three =

[ HIDE/SHOW ]