Diabetic Eye Screening Feeling Sick With Headache

[DavidGrahamJones]

The quality of the images obtained from Optomap is not good enough for diabetic eye screening.

Interesting. The company which is now owned by Nikon seem to imply something different.

"Our core devices produce ultra-widefield (UWF™), high resolution optomap images of approximately 82% or 200◦ of the retina, something no other device is capable of doing in a single capture. An optomap image provides a bigger picture and more clinical information which facilitates the early detection, management and effective treatment of disorders and diseases evidenced in the retina such as retinal detachments and tears, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration."

Also the BMJ reported on "A randomised trial of non-mydriatic ultra-wide field retinal imaging versus usual care to screen for diabetic eye disease: rationale and protocol for the Clearsight trial". Their conclusion was "NM UWF imaging is a highly promising screening option for diabetic eye disease. The Clearsight trial will determine whether NM UWF imaging improves detection of clinically important eye disease compared with current practice and, if so, should help address an important gap in diabetes care."

We might see them . . . . . one day.

 

[Mr_Pot]

Interesting. The company which is now owned by Nikon seem to imply something different.

"Our core devices produce ultra-widefield (UWF™), high resolution optomap images of approximately 82% or 200◦ of the retina, something no other device is capable of doing in a single capture. An optomap image provides a bigger picture and more clinical information which facilitates the early detection, management and effective treatment of disorders and diseases evidenced in the retina such as retinal detachments and tears, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration."

Also the BMJ reported on "A randomised trial of non-mydriatic ultra-wide field retinal imaging versus usual care to screen for diabetic eye disease: rationale and protocol for the Clearsight trial". Their conclusion was "NM UWF imaging is a highly promising screening option for diabetic eye disease. The Clearsight trial will determine whether NM UWF imaging improves detection of clinically important eye disease compared with current practice and, if so, should help address an important gap in diabetes care."

We might see them . . . . . one day.

It doesn't mean that drops are not needed.

 

[Mr_Pot]

It doesn't mean that drops are not needed.

I take that back, I just noticed that it said non-mydriatic.

 

[Dark Horse]

Interesting. The company which is now owned by Nikon seem to imply something different.

"Our core devices produce ultra-widefield (UWF™), high resolution optomap images of approximately 82% or 200◦ of the retina, something no other device is capable of doing in a single capture. An optomap image provides a bigger picture and more clinical information which facilitates the early detection, management and effective treatment of disorders and diseases evidenced in the retina such as retinal detachments and tears, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration."

Also the BMJ reported on "A randomised trial of non-mydriatic ultra-wide field retinal imaging versus usual care to screen for diabetic eye disease: rationale and protocol for the Clearsight trial". Their conclusion was "NM UWF imaging is a highly promising screening option for diabetic eye disease. The Clearsight trial will determine whether NM UWF imaging improves detection of clinically important eye disease compared with current practice and, if so, should help address an important gap in diabetes care."

We might see them . . . . . one day.

Agreed that the ultra-widefield covers a greater area of the retina so could potentially pick up significant changes that are outside the area imaged by the NHS diabetic eye screening service. However, a review article, 'The English National Screening Programme for diabetic retinopathy 2003–2016' says, "The earlier devices that provided wide-field imaging compromised on the detection of microaneurysms in the central field." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5429356/#CR45

The Clearsight trial is still under way and the 'conclusion' is just part of the discussion by the trial authors explaining why the trial is being undertaken - it doesn't mean that there have been highly promising results. Also, as part of the discussion,the authors say, "Finally, the results of Clearsight may not be generalisable to places (eg, UK) where photographic retinopathy screening is the standard of care."

Technology is improving all the time and, as you say, we might see them one day. For the time being, screening by digital photography is still the screening method of choice.

 

[Daibell]

Hi. You have been very unlucky. I've now had these tests for over 10 years and never a problem with pain or any other problem other than blurred vision light sensitivity for 5 hours. I assume they put in two drops, the 1st one being an anaesthetic and then the dilator drop? When I looked at the sheet of paper they gave me showing the medication I saw two alternatives for each of the drops so may be worth asking what they used that gave you the problem.

 

[Energize]

So going forward, no more drops, apparently they is an alternative drop or they can try without drops.

Hi @GeminiMum
At my last eye screening test, the lady was about to put the drops in my eyes but commented that my eyes were already quite well dilated. So, I suggested she try the camera without drops but, if she felt the pictures weren't so good, then to do the drops. She was happy with the pictures she got, fortunately.

Next time I'm due the Eye screening test, I'll be wearing sunglasses for a while beforehand, in the hope I don't need the drops LOL

 

[lucylocket61]

I've made an appointment at an opticians, I've also spoken to the Diabetic Eye Screening person who said it is rare to have such a bad reaction and it could be an allergy to the drops or could have increased pressure in my eyes. My eyes feel like they are under strain/pressure. I'm just hoping that the optician can rule out anything sinister and it's an allergy, I do have an allergy with anaesthetics and sensitivities to certain food groups so it would be that (that's what I'm hoping anyway).

I was told to wear sunglasses, even indoors, and avoid any light for 5-6 hours after my eye test as my pupils wouldnt be able to react to the light and it could harm them. Did it not say that on your leaflet?

 

[Deleted member 308541]

Did it not say that on your leaflet?

Fancy getting a leaflet for an eye test / check, we do not have this here.

What we do have is, no eye drops, no tests done.

 

[kitedoc]

Are you sure? I have never heard any mention of reversal drops.

It may depend on how long the particular reversal drops take to wear off. If short acting maybe the reversal drops are not given (and the cost factor may be involved also).

 

[kitedoc]

From my past experience as a diabetic, not as any professional advice or opinion.
An allergy is usually indicated by severe itching and or swelling of the eye and surrounding tissues (se Glaucoma.org).
And it is noted that it is very often the preservative in the eye drops to which the person reacts.
The use of a preservative-free eye drop may be the answer in this case to avoid such an allergic reaction.
Where there are other reactions such as headache etc the usual description is that of an adverse reaction.
With such reactions my doctor insists that he note not just the name of the medication but also what the adverse effects were, as this sometimes allows the cause of the reaction to be identified and thus possible antidotes to be considered.
He also noted, in my case at least, that several other medications might cause similar problems as they are related to the common mechanism of the cause of the adverse reactions seen with say, the eye drop.

 

[kitedoc]

Fancy getting a leaflet for an eye test / check, we do not have this here.

What we do have is, no eye drops, no tests done.

I thought that the general recommendation in Aussie GP's Diabetes Health Care and Prevention program includes an initial eye check on diagnosis and follow up check every 2 years or sooner if advised by optician or ophthalmologist.

 

[Deleted member 308541]

I thought that the general recommendation in Aussie GP's Diabetes Health Care and Prevention program includes an initial eye check on diagnosis and follow up check every 2 years or sooner if advised by optician or ophthalmologist.

Every year for diabetics and pensioners over sixty five, non diabetic people every two years.