Detection of Papilloedema Study (DOPS): rates of false positive papilloedema in the community.

BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis of papilloedema is common and carries significant potential for morbidity from over-investigation and over-treatment. We aimed to determine the community prevalence of false positive diagnosis of papilloedema (FPE) on fundus imaging. METHODS: We evaluated fundus images from a community cross-section of 198 12-14-year-olds from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) longitudinal cohort study database and patient images from our hospital departmental database with and without papilloedema. We asked clinicians, in isolation, to rate the subjects as a forced choice task to "papilloedema" or "not papilloedema" based on the fundus images alone. Raters comprised (i) four neuro-ophthalmologists, (ii) four ophthalmologists, (iii) four neurologists and (iv) four emergency medicine physicians. RESULTS: The prevalence of FPE in the ALSPAC population, defined as images mistaken as papilloedema by χ% of raters (Pχ) varied from P100 = 0% to P50 = 21.3 ± 3.9%. In the hospital population, there was a lower rate of FPE, P50 = 7.1 ± 10.8%. Sensitivity for papilloedema detection approached 100%, though three raters incorrectly labelled the same patient with unilateral disc swelling as normal, all other cases were detected by all raters. CONCLUSIONS: Fundus photography assessment in isolation is highly sensitive but poorly specific for papilloedema detection. Using this method to screen the general population has significant potential for harm as overdiagnosis occurs, even in the hands of experienced clinicians.

Ophthalmic assessment of children with down syndrome: is England doing its bit?

INTRODUCTION: Patients with Down syndrome have characteristic features including ocular manifestations. Guidelines exist for ophthalmic surveillance of people with Down syndrome, but locally (North Staffordshire) there is no formal program in place. METHODS: Hospital records were used to detect children with Down syndrome. Data were extracted retrospectively to determine which children had been seen by ophthalmic services, the mode of assessment used, and the frequency of ophthalmic disorders. RESULTS: Of the 96 children with Down syndrome, 38% received no ophthalmic assessment. Of those seen, the mean age at first appointment was nearly 3 years, with a number of children being more than 5 years old. Most children (96%) had at least one ophthalmic abnormality, the commonest being hyperopia. Requested follow-up was routinely exceeded by almost a year with 19% of children receiving no follow-up. DISCUSSION: Ocular disorders are common in the two thirds of children who are currently seen by ophthalmic services. Locally, we are falling short of the targets set by the 2006 recommendations for basic medical care of people with Down syndrome. A screening program might have a beneficial impact on the vision of children with Down syndrome.