Prevalence and assessment of diabetic retinopathy in a densely populated suburban area of Tianjin, China – The Beichen Eye Study

Le résumé fourni par la source

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to explore the prevalence, associated risk factors, and the influence of urbanization on the epidemiology of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME). METHODS: This study utilized a cross-sectional design to survey residents aged 50 and older in the Beichen community, Tianjin. Participants underwent thorough examinations, including questionnaire surveys, laboratory blood tests, eye assessments, fundus photography, and optical coherence tomography (OCT) scans. DR was diagnosed using the retinopathy severity scale from fundus photographs based on the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) classification system. DME was identified through medical history records and OCT evaluations. In this study, we analyzed and assessed the prevalence and risk factors associated with DR and DME. RESULTS: The study included 5,648 participants, and 1,182 of these were diagnosed with diabetes. Among the diabetic individuals, the prevalence of DR was 28.8%. Among the eyes of those diagnosed with DR, 37.12% had mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR), 54.81% had moderate NPDR, 6.35% (33 eyes) showed severe NPDR, and 1.73% had proliferative DR (PDR). The prevalence of DME among diabetic patients was 14.13%. Age was negatively correlated with DR (OR, 0.924), while blood glucose levels (OR, 1.123) and the duration of diabetes (OR, 1.090) were positively correlated. Additionally, blood glucose levels (OR, 1.121) and the duration of diabetes (OR, 1.070) were positively associated with DME. CONCLUSION: In this study, the prevalence of DR and DME was high in the Beichen District of Tianjin than in other parts of China. Maintaining effective glycemic control is the most important modifiable factor in reducing the risk of DR and DME progression and minimizing the risk of vision loss.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.