Table 2

Secondary outcomes of sight-threatening errors, identification of lesion features and confidence ratings

Ophthalmologists (n=48)Optometrists (n=48)OR (95% CI)p Value
Secondary outcomenPer centnPer cent
Sight-threatening errors62/9946.257/9945.70.93 (0.55 to 1.57)0.789
Is there SRF?515/201625.5627/201631.11.73 (1.21 to 2.48)0.002
 Has it increased since baseline?498/51596.7541/62786.3
Are there IRC?799/201639.6808/201640.11.00 (0.61 to 1.65)0.985
 Has it increased since baseline?667/79983.5683/80884.5
Is there DRT?482/201623.9826/201641.03.46 (2.09 to 5.71)<0.001
 Has it increased since baseline?381/48279.0597/82672.3
Is there any PED?845/201641.9842/201641.80.91 (0.47 to 1.79)0.786
 Has it increased since baseline?311/84536.8392/84246.6
Is there blood?150/20167.4194/20169.61.56 (1.00 to 2.44)0.048
 New or increased since baseline?126/15084.0146/19475.3
Are there exudates?152/20167.5380/201618.83.10 (1.58 to 6.08)<0.001
 New or increased since baseline?38/15225.087/38022.9
Confidence rating
 3220/201610.9496/201624.60.15 (0.07 to 0.32)*<0.001
Correct lesion classifications for each confidence rating†
  • *Comparison of optometrists versus ophthalmologists; odds of a confidence rating of 5 versus a rating of 1–4.

  • †For example, of the seven vignettes to which ophthalmologists gave a confidence rating of 1, three were correct with respect to the primary outcome.

  • DRT, diffuse retinal thickening; IRC, intraretinal cysts; OR, odds ratio; PED, pigment epithelial detachment; SRF, subretinal fluid.