Evaluation for the Fundus Findings of Diabetes Mellitus Patients Who Visited to the Ophthalmic Department for the First Time.
- Author:
Byung Kuen SHIN
1
;
Kwang Soo KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Ophthalmology, Keimyung University School of Medicine, Korea. kimks@dsmc.or.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Diabetes mellitus;
Diabetic retinopathy;
Ophthalmology;
Public information
- MeSH:
Compliance;
Diabetes Mellitus*;
Diabetic Retinopathy;
Diagnosis;
Early Diagnosis;
Humans;
Incidence;
Mass Media;
Ophthalmology;
Prevalence;
Visual Acuity
- From:Journal of the Korean Ophthalmological Society
2002;43(11):2158-2165
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:Korean
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: To evaluate the fundus findings of diabetes mellitus (DM) patients who visited the department of ophthalmology for the first time and to emphasize the importance of early diagnosis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS: After 84 DM patients were asked to respond to the questionaire regarding previous medical histories and underwent the general ophthalmological examination, their fundus findings were analyzed and the incidence rates of DR were evaluated according to the prevalence period of DM and the compliance with treatment for DM as well. RESULTS: Motivations of visit to ophthalmology were impairment of visual acuity (46.4%) and requests by medical doctors (35.7%), examinations for other ophthalmologic diseases (13.1%), and mass media (1.2%) in the order. Diagnosis rate of DR in 84 patients who visited our department for the first time was 52.4% and among these, occupying rates of non-proliferative DR and proliferative DR were 47.7% and 52.3% respectively. Incidence rates of DR according to prevalence period of DM were 26.9% in 5 and 10 15 years. Incidence rates of DR according to compliance with treatment for DM were 45%, 50% in regularly and irregularly treated patients respectively. CONCLUSIONS: These results showed that high percentage of DM patients did not take the ophthalmological examination and treatment even though they already had various degree of DR. In these patients, the longer prevalence period of DM, the higher incidence rate of DR, and irregularly treated patients tended to increase the incidence rate of DR compared to regularly treated patients. Thus we emphasize that active public information is required urgently on the importance of early diagnosis and treatment of DR to primary medical doctors to care DM patients as well as DM patients themselves.
