Comparing the effectiveness of telemedicine and traditional surveillance in providing diabetic retinopathy screening examinations: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of telemedicine for providing diabetic retinopathy screening examinations compared with the effectiveness of traditional surveillance in community health clinics with a high proportion of minorities, including American Indian/Alaska Natives. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized controlled trial and assigned diabetic participants to one of two groups: (1) telemedicine with a nonmydriatic camera or (2) traditional surveillance with an eye care provider. For those receiving telemedicine, the criteria for requiring follow-up with an eye care provider were (1) moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy or higher, (2) presence of clinically significant macular edema, or (3) "unable to grade" result for diabetic retinopathy or macular edema. RESULTS: The telemedicine group (n=296) was more likely to receive a diabetic retinopathy screening examination within the first year of enrollment compared with the traditional surveillance group (n=271) (94% versus 56%, p<0.001). The overall prevalence of diabetic retinopathy at baseline was 21.4%, and macular edema was present in 1.4% of participants. In the telemedicine group, 20.5% would require further evaluation with an eye care provider, and 86% of these referrals were because of poor-quality digital images. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine using nonmydriatic cameras increased the proportion of participants who obtained diabetic retinopathy screening examinations, and most did not require follow-up with an eye care provider. Telemedicine may be a more effective way to screen patients for diabetic retinopathy and to triage further evaluation with an eye care provider. Methods to decrease poor quality imaging would improve the effectiveness of telemedicine for diabetic retinopathy screening examinations.

Screening for prostate cancer: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

BACKGROUND: Screening can detect prostate cancer at earlier, asymptomatic stages, when treatments might be more effective. PURPOSE: To update the 2002 and 2008 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force evidence reviews on screening and treatments for prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (2002 to July 2011) and the Cochrane Library Database (through second quarter of 2011). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials of prostate-specific antigen-based screening, randomized trials and cohort studies of prostatectomy or radiation therapy versus watchful waiting, and large observational studies of perioperative harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Investigators abstracted and checked study details and quality using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 5 screening trials, the 2 largest and highest-quality studies reported conflicting results. One found that screening was associated with reduced prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with no screening in a subgroup of men aged 55 to 69 years after 9 years (relative risk, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.98]; absolute risk reduction, 0.07 percentage point). The other found no statistically significant effect after 10 years (relative risk, 1.1 [CI, 0.80 to 1.5]). After 3 or 4 screening rounds, 12% to 13% of screened men had false-positive results. Serious infections or urine retention occurred after 0.5% to 1.0% of prostate biopsies. There were 3 randomized trials and 23 cohort studies of treatments. One good-quality trial found that prostatectomy for localized prostate cancer decreased risk for prostate cancer-specific mortality compared with watchful waiting through 13 years of follow-up (relative risk, 0.62 [CI, 0.44 to 0.87]; absolute risk reduction, 6.1%). Benefits seemed to be limited to men younger than 65 years. Treating approximately 3 men with prostatectomy or 7 men with radiation therapy instead of watchful waiting would each result in 1 additional case of erectile dysfunction. Treating approximately 5 men with prostatectomy would result in 1 additional case of urinary incontinence. Prostatectomy was associated with perioperative death (about 0.5%) and cardiovascular events (0.6% to 3%), and radiation therapy was associated with bowel dysfunction. LIMITATIONS: Only English-language articles were included. Few studies evaluated newer therapies. CONCLUSION: Prostate-specific antigen-based screening results in small or no reduction in prostate cancer-specific mortality and is associated with harms related to subsequent evaluation and treatments, some of which may be unnecessary. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.