Suspected retinopathies in Norwegian optometric practice with emphasis on patients with diabetes: a cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The scope of optometry differs worldwide. In Norway the vast majority of optometrists perform ophthalmoscopy as part of their routine examinations. The aim of this study was to describe the frequency of <it>suspected </it>retinopathies in patients seen for routine optometric examination and to determine how optometrists deal with these patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>212 optometrists participated in a questionnaire survey and a practice registration during November 2004 – May 2005. In the practice registration, details for 20 consecutive patient encounters were recorded. Data were analysed by chi-square tests and multiple logistic regression.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>All optometrist stated that ocular history taking was an integrated part of their routine examination, while general health and diabetes history were routinely addressed by 59% and 42% of the optometrists, respectively. During the practice registration 4,052 patient encounters were recorded. Ophthalmoscopy was performed in 88% of the patients, of which 2% were dilated fundus examinations. Retinopathy was <it>suspected </it>in 106 patients, of whom 31 did not report a previous history of ocular or systemic disease. Old age (75+), hypertension and diabetes strongly predicted retinopathy with odds ratio (95% CI) of 6.4 (4.2 to 9.9), 3.8 (2.4 to 6.0) and 2.5 (1.4 to 4.7), respectively. Diabetic retinopathy was seen in 10% of diabetic patients and <it>suspected </it>in 0.2% of patients with no established history of diabetes. Retinopathy was not confirmed in 9 out 18 patients with a history of diabetic retinopathy; seven of these had undergone laser treatment. Out of the 106 patients with findings of retinopathy, 28 were referred to an ophthalmologist or a general practitioner (GP), written reports were sent to a GP in 16 cases, ten patients were urged to contact their GP for further follow up, while 52 were considered in need of routine optometric follow up only.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Optometric practice provides a low threshold setting for detecting cases of ocular disease and retinal manifestations of systemic disease in the population. At present diagnosis of retinopathy in Norwegian optometric practice is unreliable. There are potentials for improving the optometrists' routine examination, their patient management patterns and collaboration routines with medical doctors.</p

Care of vision and ocular health in diabetic members of a national diabetes organization: A cross-sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Regular examination and early treatment of diabetic retinopathy can prevent visual loss. The aim of the study was to describe the care of vision and ocular health in people with diabetes in Norway.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional questionnaire survey of a random sample (n = 1,887) of the Norwegian Diabetic Associations' (NDA) members was carried out in 2005. Questions were asked about care of vision and ocular health, history of ocular disease and visual symptoms, general medical history and diabetes management. The study was approved by the Regional Committee for Medical Research Ethics.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The response rate was 74%. Forty-four questionnaires with incomplete data regarding gender, age or type of diabetes were excluded, leaving 1352 cases (52% females) for analysis. 451 (33%) had type 1 and 901 (67%) had type 2 diabetes, the mean duration of diabetes was respectively, 22 (sd ± 14) and 10 (sd ± 9) years. In all 1,052 (78%) had their eyes examined according to guidelines and 1,169 (87%) confirmed to have received information about regular eye examinations. One in two recalled to have received such information from their general practitioner. To have received information about the importance of eye examinations (PR 3.1, 95% CI 2.4 to 4.0), and diabetes duration > 10 years (PR 1.2, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.3), were independently associated with reporting regular eye examinations. A history of diabetic retinopathy was reported by 178 (13%) responders, of which 101 (57%) reported a history of laser treatment. Responders who had regular eye examinations reported more frequently a history of diabetic retinopathy (19% vs. 5%, p < 0.001). The frequency of retinopathy was significantly higher in responders with reported HbA1c values above treatment target (23% vs. 13%, p = 0.001). However, in responders who were not regularly examined, there was no difference in reported frequency of retinopathy with regard to HbA1c level.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Eight out of ten diabetic members of the NDA had their eyes examined according to current guidelines and the majority was well informed about the risk of vision loss due to diabetes. The results indicate that the reported history of diabetic retinopathy likely underestimates the prevalence of retinopathy.</p

Sensitivity and specificity of Norwegian optometrists’ evaluation of diabetic retinopathy in single-field retinal images – a cross-sectional experimental study

Background In the working age group, diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of visual impairment. Regular eye examinations and early treatment of retinopathy can prevent visual loss, so screening for diabetic retinopathy is cost-effective. Dilated retinal digital photography with the additional use of ophthalmoscopy is the most effective and robust method of diabetic retinopathy screening. The aim of this study was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of diabetic retinopathy screening when performed by Norwegian optometrists. Methods This study employed a cross-sectional experimental design. Seventy-four optometrists working in private optometric practice were asked to screen 14 single-field retinal images for possible diabetic retinopathy. The screening was undertaken using a web-based visual identification and management of ophthalmological conditions (VIMOC) examination. The images used in the VIMOC examination were selected from a population survey and had been previously examined by two independent ophthalmologists. In order to establish a “gold standard”, images were only chosen for use in the VIMOC examination if they had elicited diagnostic agreement between the two independent ophthalmologists. To reduce the possibility of falsely high specificity occurring by chance, half the presented images were of retinas that were not affected by diabetic retinopathy. Sensitivity and specificity for diabetic retinopathy was calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The mean (95%CI) sensitivity for identifying eyes with any diabetic retinopathy was 67% (62% to 72%). The mean (95%CI) specificity for identifying eyes without diabetic retinopathy was 84% (80% to 89%). The mean (95%CI) sensitivity for identifying eyes with mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy or moderate non-proliferative diabetes was 54% (47% to 61%) and 100%, respectively. Only four optometrists (5%) met the required standard of at least 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity that has been previously set for diabetic retinopathy screening programmes. Conclusions The evaluation of retinal images for diabetic retinopathy by Norwegian optometrists does not meet the required screening standard of at least 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity. The introduction of measures to improve this situation could have implications for both formal optometric training and continuing optometric professional education

Sensitivity and specificity of Norwegian optometrists’ evaluation of diabetic retinopathy in single-field retinal images – a cross-sectional experimental study

Abstract Background In the working age group, diabetic retinopathy is a leading cause of visual impairment. Regular eye examinations and early treatment of retinopathy can prevent visual loss, so screening for diabetic retinopathy is cost-effective. Dilated retinal digital photography with the additional use of ophthalmoscopy is the most effective and robust method of diabetic retinopathy screening. The aim of this study was to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of diabetic retinopathy screening when performed by Norwegian optometrists. Methods This study employed a cross-sectional experimental design. Seventy-four optometrists working in private optometric practice were asked to screen 14 single-field retinal images for possible diabetic retinopathy. The screening was undertaken using a web-based visual identification and management of ophthalmological conditions (VIMOC) examination. The images used in the VIMOC examination were selected from a population survey and had been previously examined by two independent ophthalmologists. In order to establish a “gold standard”, images were only chosen for use in the VIMOC examination if they had elicited diagnostic agreement between the two independent ophthalmologists. To reduce the possibility of falsely high specificity occurring by chance, half the presented images were of retinas that were not affected by diabetic retinopathy. Sensitivity and specificity for diabetic retinopathy was calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results The mean (95%CI) sensitivity for identifying eyes with any diabetic retinopathy was 67% (62% to 72%). The mean (95%CI) specificity for identifying eyes without diabetic retinopathy was 84% (80% to 89%). The mean (95%CI) sensitivity for identifying eyes with mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy or moderate non-proliferative diabetes was 54% (47% to 61%) and 100%, respectively. Only four optometrists (5%) met the required standard of at least 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity that has been previously set for diabetic retinopathy screening programmes. Conclusions The evaluation of retinal images for diabetic retinopathy by Norwegian optometrists does not meet the required screening standard of at least 80% sensitivity and 95% specificity. The introduction of measures to improve this situation could have implications for both formal optometric training and continuing optometric professional education.</p

Nursing staff’s responses to thematic content of patients’ expressed worries: observing communication in home care visits

Abstract Background The aim of the study was to explore the thematic content of older persons’ expressed worries in home care visits, and how nursing staff respond to different thematic contents. Methods The study had a descriptive, observational design, including 195 audio-recorded Norwegian home care visits with 33 nursing staff and 48 older persons. In all, 638 patient cues/concerns (worries) and subsequent nursing staff’s responses were identified using Verona Coding Definitions of Emotional Sequences. A novel thematic coding scheme was used to label the thematic content of the cues/concerns. The nursing staff’s responses were grouped based on communicative function as emotion-focused, content-focused or ignoring/blocking the cue/concern. Group difference was analysed using Pearson’s chi-squared test, Fisher’s exact test, and adjusted residuals. Results The theme of worries was associated with elicitation of the cue/concern, either elicited by the nursing staff or spontaneously expressed by the patient (Chi-square, p< 0.001). “Ageing and bodily impairment” was the most common theme (66%) and was equally elicited by patients and nursing staff. Worries about “Relationships with others” (9%), “Health care-related issues” (15%) and “Life narratives and value issues” (9%) were mainly elicited by nursing staff. The nursing staff response was associated with the theme of worries (p˂0.001). For the sub-themes of “Ageing and bodily impairment”, Coping with existential challenges received more frequently emotion-focused responses (adjusted residuals: 3.2) and Expression of pain felt in the moment were more frequently ignored/blocked (adjusted residuals: 4.0, Fisher’s exact test, p< 0.001). For the sub-themes of “Relationships with others”, Being a burden more frequently received a content-focused response (adjusted residuals: 2.8), while Losing social ties more frequently received an emotion-focused response (adjusted residuals: 3.1, Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.009). Conclusion “Ageing and bodily impairment” was the most common theme and more frequently elicited by the older persons than other themes. Emotionally focused nursing staff responses were most common when addressing existential challenges and fear of losing social ties. Whereas nursing staff showed a tendency to ignore patients’ spontaneous expressions of pain. Further research should explore the influence of nursing staff’s responses on quality of care and patient satisfaction

Person-Centred Research: A novel approach to Randomized Controlled Trials

Introduction Integrating person-centred values with randomized controlled trials methodology is a novel idea. Person-centredness is gaining steadily more prominence and attention in healthcare and health related policy and research. Randomized controlled trials are considered as the gold standard in evidence-based medicine for evaluating the effects of treatment or determining the causal effect. A wide array of study designs is available but there is a lack of designs with both strong person-centred principles and a strong position with respect to the level of evidence. In this paper we intend to introduce a novel design to fill such a gap. Aims and objectives The aim of this paper is to introduce a novel study design where essential values of person-centred care (PCC) are integrated with randomized controlled trial (RCT) methodology into a novel study design that is personcentred randomized controlled trial (PC-RCT). 2 Methods In this paper we discuss the importance and role of evidence in clinical research, levels of evidence, as well as the significance of study design in evidence-based medicine. Moreover, we discuss randomized controlled trials that are considered the gold standard to achieve high quality evidence. In the paper we will explain what the concept of person-centred care is and discuss the values associated with person-centeredness. The theoretical and methodological considerations that are relevant in applying this concept will be discussed before presenting how we intend to incorporate the person-centred values into a randomized controlled trial in a novel study design that is both person-centred and randomized controlled (PC-RCT). Different aspects of this proposed novel study design will be discussed, including the theory and methods underlying this new proposed design, its novelty, different stages and practical steps involved in this proposed design. Challenges, drawbacks and possible solutions for addressing challenges of this novel design will be explored, focusing on the construct, dynamics, advantages, disadvantages and novelty of PC-RCT design. Conclusion This paper presents how person-centred values and traditional randomised controlled trial principal values are integrated into one study design where the strengths of both concepts are merged into one. The proposed novel study design has stronger person-centred characteristics and is solid in its RCT features. This design ensures that participants have much more active participation in decision-making and gain more choice in their treatment. The proposed novel study design in this paper has clearly an important role to play in filling the need for a study design that can address both the need for rendering higher levels of evidence as well as simultaneously securing greater integration of person-centred values in the same study design.sch_nur1. Colditz GA. Overview of the epidemiology methods and applications: strengths and limitations of observational study designs. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition. 2010;50 Suppl 1:10-2. 2. Straus SE, Sackett DL. Using research findings in clinical practice. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1998;317(7154):339-42. 3. Kuehn BM. Leaders in evidence-based medicine examine the path ahead. Jama. 2013;310(16):1663-4. 4. Manchikanti L. Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management, part I: introduction and general considerations. Pain physician. 2008;11(2):161-86. 5. Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2011;128(1):305-10. 6. Gopikrishna V. A report on case reports. Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD. 2010;13(4):265-71. 7. Carey JC. The importance of case reports in advancing scientific knowledge of rare diseases. Advances in experimental medicine and biology. 2010;686:77-86. 8. Morris BA. The importance of case reports. CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne. 1989;141(9):875-6. 9. Vandenbroucke JP. In defense of case reports and case series. Annals of internal medicine. 2001;134(4):330-4. 10. Dekkers OM, Egger M, Altman DG, Vandenbroucke JP. Distinguishing case series from cohort studies. Annals of internal medicine. 2012;156(1 Pt 1):37-40. 11. Hess DR. Retrospective studies and chart reviews. Respiratory care. 2004;49(10):1171-4. 12. Song JW, Chung KC. Observational studies: cohort and case-control studies. Plastic and reconstructive surgery. 2010;126(6):2234-42. 13. Brookmeyer R, Liang KY, Linet M. Matched case-control designs and overmatched analyses. American journal of epidemiology. 1986;124(4):693-701. 14. Keneth J Rothman SG, Timothy L. Lash. Modern Epidemiology. Third Edition ed. USA: lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. 15. Howell BSED. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science Wiley; 2005. 2352 p. 16. Sibbald B, Roland M. Understanding controlled trials. Why are randomised controlled trials important? BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1998;316(7126):201. 17. Miller JN, Colditz GA, Mosteller F. How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. II: Surgical. Statistics in medicine. 1989;8(4):455-66. 18. Wittes J. Sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials. Epidemiologic reviews. 2002;24(1):39-53. 19. Spieth PM, Kubasch AS, Penzlin AI, Illigens BM, Barlinn K, Siepmann T. Randomized controlled trials - a matter of design. Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment. 2016;12:1341-9. 20. Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. The New England journal of medicine. 2000;342(25):1878-86. 21. Altman DG. Randomisation. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1991;302(6791):1481-2. 22. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential Treatment Assignment with Balancing for Prognostic Factors in the Controlled Clinical Trial. Biometrics. 1975;31(1):103-15. 23. Suresh K. An overview of randomization techniques: An unbiased assessment of outcome in clinical research. Journal of human reproductive sciences. 2011;4(1):8-11. 24. Vickers AJ. How to randomize. Journal of the Society for Integrative Oncology. 2006;4(4):194-8. 25. Zill JM, Scholl I, Harter M, Dirmaier J. Evaluation of dimensions and measurement scales in patient-centeredness. Patient preference and adherence. 2013;7:345-51. 26. Morgan S, Yoder LH. A concept analysis of person-centered care. Journal of holistic nursing : official journal of the American Holistic Nurses' Association. 2012;30(1):6-15. 27. Balint E, Courtenay, M., Elder, A., Hull, S., & Julian, P. The doctor, the patient and the group: Balint revisited. London: Routledge; 1993. 28. Mead N, Bower P. Patient-centredness: a conceptual framework and review of the empirical literature. Social science & medicine (1982). 2000;51(7):1087-110. 29. Szasz TS, Hollender MH. A contribution to the philosophy of medicine; the basic models of the doctor-patient relationship. AMA archives of internal medicine. 1956;97(5):585-92. 30. McCormack B. Researching nursing practice: does person-centredness matter? Nursing philosophy : an international journal for healthcare professionals. 2003;4(3):179-88. 31. McCormack B. A conceptual framework for person-centred practice with older people. International journal of nursing practice. 2003;9(3):202-9. 32. Tosh G, Soares-Weiser K, Adams CE. Pragmatic vs explanatory trials: the pragmascope tool to help measure differences in protocols of mental health randomized controlled trials. Dialogues in clinical neuroscience. 2011;13(2):209-15. 33. Bergman LR, Magnusson D. A person-oriented approach in research on developmental psychopathology. Development and psychopathology. 1997;9(2):291-319. 34. Brocklehurst P. Partially randomised patient preference trials. British journal of obstetrics and gynaecology. 1997;104(12):1332-5. 35. Brewin CR, Bradley C. Patient preferences and randomised clinical trials. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1989;299(6694):313-5. 36. Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, Issell B, Topol EJ, Schork NJ. The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Personalized medicine. 2011;8(2):161-73. 37. Sterba SK, Bauer DJ. Matching method with theory in person-oriented developmental psychopathology research. Development and psychopathology. 2010;22(2):239-54. 38. Bergman LR, Wngby M. The person-oriented approach: A short theoretical and practical guide2014. 39. Molenaar PCM. A Manifesto on Psychology as Idiographic Science: Bringing the Person Back Into Scientific Psychology, This Time Forever. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2004;2(4):201-18. 40. von Eye A, Bergman LR. Research strategies in developmental psychopathology: dimensional identity and the person-oriented approach. Development and psychopathology. 2003;15(3):553-80. 41. Jayadevappa RaC, Sumedha. Patient Centered Care - A Conceptual Model and Review of the State of the Art. The Open Health Services and Policy Journal. 2011; Volume 4, 2011 (The Open Health Services and Policy Journal, 2011, 4: 15-25):15-25. 42. Buetow S. A framework for doing person-centred health research. 2011. 2011;1(2):4. 43. Vist GE, Bryant D, Somerville L, Birminghem T, Oxman AD. Outcomes of patients who participate in randomized controlled trials compared to similar patients receiving similar interventions who do not participate. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2008(3):Mr000009. 44. Institute of Medicine Committee on Quality of Health Care in A. Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US) Copyright 2001 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.; 2001. 45. Hemming K, Taljaard M. Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach. Journal of clinical epidemiology.69:137-46. 46. Sato T. Sample size calculations with compliance information. Statistics in medicine. 2000;19(19):2689-97. 47. Dell RB, Holleran S, Ramakrishnan R. Sample size determination. ILAR journal. 2002;43(4):207-13. 48. Kim J, Seo BS. How to calculate sample size and why. Clinics in orthopedic surgery. 2013;5(3):235-42. 49. Cuzick J, Edwards R, Segnan N. Adjusting for non-compliance and contamination in randomized clinical trials. Statistics in medicine. 1997;16(9):1017-29. 50. Moons KG, Donders RA, Stijnen T, Harrell FE, Jr. Using the outcome for imputation of missing predictor values was preferred. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2006;59(10):1092-101. 51. Donders AR, van der Heijden GJ, Stijnen T, Moons KG. Review: a gentle introduction to imputation of missing values. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2006;59(10):1087-91. 52. Gottfredson NC, Bauer DJ, Baldwin SA. Modeling Change in the Presence of Non-Randomly Missing Data: Evaluating A Shared Parameter Mixture Model. Structural equation modeling : a multidisciplinary journal. 2014;21(2):196-209. 53. Guyatt G, Sackett D, Taylor DW, Chong J, Roberts R, Pugsley S. Determining optimal therapy--randomized trials in individual patients. The New England journal of medicine. 1986;314(14):889-92. 54. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Jama. 1995;273(5):408-12. 55. Rivas-Ruiz F, Perez-Vicente S, Gonzalez-Ramirez AR. Bias in clinical epidemiological study designs. Allergologia et immunopathologia. 2013;41(1):54-9. 56. Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 1997;315(7123):1636. 57. Fries JF, Krishnan E. Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development. Arthritis research & therapy. 2004;6(3):R250-5. 58. Lilford RJ, Braunholtz DA, Greenhalgh R, Edwards SJ. Trials and fast changing technologies: the case for tracker studies. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2000;320(7226):43-6. 59. Page MJ, Higgins JP, Clayton G, Sterne JA, Hrobjartsson A, Savovic J. Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies. PloS one. 2016;11(7):e0159267. 60. Ciolino JD, Martin RH, Zhao W, Hill MD, Jauch EC, Palesch YY. Measuring continuous baseline covariate imbalances in clinical trial data. Statistical methods in medical research. 2015;24(2):255-72. 61. Miller GA, Chapman JP. Misunderstanding analysis of covariance. Journal of abnormal psychology. 2001;110(1):40-8. 62. Overall JE, Woodward JA. Common Misconceptions Concerning The Analysis Of Covariance. Multivariate behavioral research. 1977;12(2):171-86.6pub5211pub

Case finding of dry eye disease in Norwegian optometric practice: a cross-sectional study

Optometrists are primary eye care providers, and it is essentialthat they efficiently identify patients who will benefit from dryeye management. The aim of the study was to explore case find-ing of dry eye disease (DED) in optometric practice.A cross-sectional study examining dry eye symptoms andsigns in 186 patients (18–70 years of age) attending a routineeye examination, with DED defined according to the criteria ofthe Tear Film and Ocular Surface Society Dry Eye WorkshopII. Standard statistical tests were used, and clinical diagnos-tics were explored using sensitivity, specificity, and receiver-operating curve (ROC) statistics.Fifty-six patients were contact lens wearers, and they weresignificantly younger than the non-contact lens wearers (meanage 35 (SD= 1) versus 48 (± 2) years). The mean best correctedvisual acuity (BCVA) in the better eye was 1.0 (± 0.1) (decimalacuity). There was no difference in BCVA between contact lenswearers and non-contact lens wearers. The mean Ocular Sur-face Disease Index (OSDI) score was 22 (± 19), and 138 patientshad at least one positive homeostasis marker. Eighty-six hadDED, 52 had signs without symptoms, and 23 had symptomswithout signs of DED. The sensitivity and specificity of OSDI indetecting any positive homeostasis marker were 62% and 54%,respectively. In all, 106 patients had meibomian gland dysfunc-tion (MGD), of which 49 were asymptomatic. In a ROC anal-ysis, an OSDI ≥ 13 showed a diagnostic ability to differentiatebetween patients with a fluorescein breakup time (FBUT) < 10seconds and a fluorescein breakup time ≥ 10 seconds, but notbetween patients with and without staining or MGD.The majority of patients had dry eye signs and/or dry eyesymptoms. Routine assessmentofFBUT and meibomian glandsmay enable case finding of DED in optometric practice

Methods for evaluation of corneal nerve fibres in diabetes mellitus by in vivo confocal microscopy: a scoping review protocol

Introduction Globally, 422 million people have diabetes. Late complications of diabetes are blindness, kidney failure, heart attack, stroke and lower limb amputation. The prevalence of diabetic peripheral neuropathy and diabetic retinopathy is 50% and 35%, respectively. In vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) is a rapid, non-invasive method to evaluate subbasal corneal nerve fibres, which are small fibres of the peripheral nervous system. Corneal nerve fibre changes can be a marker of diabetic peripheral neuropathy. There is currently no gold-standard procedure for IVCM imaging, image processing or quantitative analysis of the corneal nerve fibres in the subbasal plexus. This protocol describes a scoping review to map, summarise and critically evaluate current methods used with IVCM evaluation in people with diabetes mellitus.Methods The scoping review will follow Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for scoping review. A comprehensive search of the literature will be conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science. The search strategy will include terms related to IVCM, diabetes and corneal nerve fibres. We will set inclusion and exclusion criteria prior to the search, and two reviewers will screen titles and abstracts independently. One reviewer will full text read eligible articles and chart data from the studies. A descriptive summary of the methods used in imaging, image processing and quantitative analysis of peripheral corneal nerve fibres by IVCM will be written.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required since this is a scoping review based on previously published articles. The findings will be published in a scientific peer-reviewed journal