Selected characteristics of the all person-visits with the potential to contribute to the primary analyses and all person-visits with complete data for the final models.

<p>Selected characteristics of the all person-visits with the potential to contribute to the primary analyses and all person-visits with complete data for the final models.</p

Comparison between base and final models of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, gross proteinuria and peripheral neuropathy.

<p>Comparison between base and final models of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, gross proteinuria and peripheral neuropathy.</p

Prevalence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, gross proteinuria, and peripheral neuropathy by diabetes duration and visit.

<p>(a) Prevalence of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. (b) Prevalence of gross proteinuria. (c) Prevalence of peripheral neuropathy.</p

Adjusted estimated prevalence of each complication at each study visit.

<p><b>(</b>a) Proliferative diabetic retinopathy–adjusted for duration of diabetes and visit. (b) Proliferative diabetic retinopathy–adjusted for duration of diabetes, visit, glycosylated hemoglobin, and systolic blood pressure. (c) Gross proteinuria—adjusted for duration of diabetes and visit. (d) Gross proteinuria—adjusted for duration of diabetes, visit, glycosylated hemoglobin, mean arterial blood pressure, and sex. (e) Peripheral neuropathy—adjusted for duration of diabetes and visit. (f) Peripheral neuropathy—adjusted for duration of diabetes, visit, glycosylated hemoglobin, sex, and smoking status. Log odds = log [p/(1-p)], i.e. log odds of -0.5 = prevalence of 38%, log odds of -1.0 = prevalence of 27%, log odds of -1.5 = prevalence of 18%, and log odds of -2.0 = prevalence of 12%.</p

Proportion of potential participants who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, relative to the total number of people seen at each study visit.

<p>Proportion of potential participants who met inclusion and exclusion criteria, relative to the total number of people seen at each study visit.</p

Comparison between base and final models of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, gross proteinuria and peripheral neuropathy when participants on dialysis or with kidney, pancreas or islet cell transplants are included.

<p>Comparison between base and final models of proliferative diabetic retinopathy, gross proteinuria and peripheral neuropathy when participants on dialysis or with kidney, pancreas or islet cell transplants are included.</p

Number of person-visits contributing to each model in the primary analyses, based on availability of data on all of the variables included in each model.

<p>Number of person-visits contributing to each model in the primary analyses, based on availability of data on all of the variables included in each model.</p

Dates of the WESDR examinations and numbers of participants with type 1 diabetes.

<p>Dates of the WESDR examinations and numbers of participants with type 1 diabetes.</p

Variability in Spectral-Domain Optical Coherence Tomography over 4 Weeks by Age

<p><b><i>Purpose</i></b>: To quantify variation in spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (SD-OCT) measures of total retinal thickness (top of inner limiting membrane to top of retinal pigment epithelium, RPE) and RPE thickness measures over a 4-week period and by age.</p> <p><b><i>Methods</i></b>: A total of 76 volunteers aged 40–85 years were seen at three visits over 4 weeks. Two Topcon SD-OCT scans were taken at each visit. Following grid re-centration, total retinal and RPE thickness were determined in nine subfields. Multilevel modeling was used to quantify variance between scans and by age.</p> <p><b><i>Results</i></b>: In the central circle, mean total retinal thickness was 237.9 µm (standard deviation, SD, 23.5 µm) and RPE thickness was 46.0 µm (SD 5.3 µm). Intraclass correlation coefficient in the central circle was 0.988 for total retinal thickness and 0.714 for RPE thickness. Pairwise measures taken within 4 weeks were strongly correlated (<i>p</i> > 0.95). Within-subject variation of total retinal thickness increased significantly with age. Subjects in the oldest age group had significantly increased among- and within-subject variability in measures of RPE thickness.</p> <p><b><i>Conclusions</i></b>: Correlation between retinal thickness measures was very high (>0.95) over a period of 4 weeks with small changes likely due to variation in measurement. Increasing variability in total retinal and RPE thickness measures with age suggest that the use of more and/or higher quality images to calculate mean thickness to reduce variability may benefit the study of these measures in older persons. This may also impact sample size calculations for future studies of SD-OCT measures in older adults.</p

Visual Impairment in White, Chinese, Black, and Hispanic Participants from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis Cohort

<div><p></p><p><i>Purpose</i>: To describe the prevalence of visual impairment and examine its association with demographic, socioeconomic, and health characteristics in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA) cohort.</p><p><i>Methods</i>: Visual acuity data were obtained from 6134 participants, aged 46–87 years at time of examination between 2002 and 2004 (mean age 64 years, 47.6% male), from six communities in the United States. Visual impairment was defined as presenting visual acuity 20/50 or worse in the better-seeing eye. Risk factors were included in multivariable logistic regression models to determine their impact on visual impairment for men and women in each racial/ethnic group.</p><p><i>Results</i>: Among all participants, 6.6% (<i>n</i> = 421) had visual impairment, including 5.6% of men (<i>n</i> = 178) and 7.5% of women (<i>n</i> = 243). Prevalence of impairment ranged from 4.2% (<i>n</i> = 52) and 6.0% (<i>n</i> = 77) in white men and women, respectively, to 7.6% (<i>n</i> = 37) and 11.6% (<i>n</i> = 44) in Chinese men and women, respectively. Older age was significantly associated with visual impairment in both men and women, particularly in those with lower socioeconomic status, but the effects of increasing age were more pronounced in men. Two-thirds of participants already wore distance correction, and not unexpectedly, a lower prevalence of visual impairment was seen in this group; however, 2.4% of men and 3.5% of women with current distance correction had correctable visual impairment, most notably among seniors.</p><p><i>Conclusion</i>: Even in the U.S. where prevalence of refractive correction is high, both visual impairment and uncorrected refractive error represent current public health challenges.</p></div