RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: To determine long-term outcomes of patients referred with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) from diabetic eye screening programmes (DESP) to tertiary care centres in the United Kingdom (UK). METHODS: Retrospective multicentre study of patients referred from two DESPs in the UK over a 36-month period (2007-9) and followed-up for 10 years. Critical outcomes included severe vision loss (SVL) and the need for vitrectomy. Other outcomes assessed included moderate vision loss (MVL), and patient survival time. Univariate and multiple variable Cox proportional hazards regressions were used to analyse survival outcomes. RESULTS: 212 eyes of 150 patients were referred with a diagnosis of PDR. 109 eyes of 72 patients were confirmed to have active PDR and included in the study. 61% of patients had low-risk PDR, while 39% exhibited high-risk features in at least one eye. Eight (7.3%) eyes developed SVL and 16 (14.7%) MVL during follow up. Vitrectomy was required in 24% (95% CI: 15 to 31%) of all PDR eyes and was most commonly performed for vitreous haemorrhage (65%). The 10-year survival in all PDR patients was 76% (95% CI: 63 to 85%) with the mean time to death for all deceased patients being 5.4 ± 3.6 years. On multivariable analysis, only age was found to have a significant association with the survival of patients with PDR. CONCLUSIONS: During the 10 year follow up SVL was uncommon, but MVL occurred in almost one-fifth of the eyes. Approximately 1 in 4 eyes required vitrectomy, highlighting its significance in patient management.
RESUMO
Clinical education research (ClinEdR) utilises diverse terminology, which can lead to confusion. A common language is essential for enhancing impact. An expert panel drawn from various workstreams within the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Incubator for Clinical Education Research was tasked with reviewing an initial list of terms for the development of a glossary of terms in the field of ClinEdR. The glossary was populated with terms, definitions and foundational papers by the authors and peer-reviewed for accuracy. The glossary of terms developed for ClinEdR should enable researchers to use a common language, promoting consistency and improving communication. We anticipate this will be useful for ClinEdR students and early career researchers. The glossary could be integrated into educational research methods courses in ClinEdR, and through critical and reflective use, enhance the quality and subsequent impact of ClinEdR.
