LKC Technologies
Português
Português English Español 日本
  • Produtos
    • For Humans
      • RETeval
      • UTAS mf/PERG
      • Tiras de sensor
    • For Animals
      • RETevet
      • Request Demo
      • Order Supplies
  • Aplicações
    • Testes e ERG
      • Electroretinography (ERG)
      • Potencial Evocado Visual (PEV)
    • Condições Clínicas
      • Retinopatia Diabética
      • Glaucoma
      • Retinal Ischemic Diseases
      • Inherited Retinal Disorders
      • Miscellaneous
    • Aplicações em animais
  • Recursos
    • Case Studies
    • eBooks & Reports
    • Webinars
    • Articles
    • Pesquisa
    • Blog
    • Videos
    • Software
  • Sobre a LKC
    • Vision & Mission
    • Team
    • Clinical Advisors
    • Depoimentos
    • História
  • Contato
  • Eye Care Customers
  • VET Customers
  • Buy Sensor Strips

Simplify Grading and Risk Assessment in Diabetic Retinopathy

By Paul Chous, MA, OD, FAAO, Ansel Johnson, OD, and Julie Rodman, OD, MSc, FAAO

Originally published in the August  2023 issue of Review of Optometry.

ERG test with the RETeval handheld device
What can be done to make it easier for optometrists to grade diabetic retinopathy (DR) and assess risk?

Dr. Johnson: A Diabetic Retinopathy Taskforce was formed last year, and we are currently finalizing a consensus document that will spell this out. The approach includes five pillars. In short, optometrists need to 1) detect, 2) grade, 3) assess risk, 4) manage and 5) support.

Dr. Chous: As members of that task force, I think I speak for the three of us when I say that, even from our very first meeting, we knew that grading and risk assessment are pain points in optometry. It tends to be highly subjective, can take a lot of time and skill, and therefore needed to be a central focus of our initiative.

With regard to grading, can you give us a preview of where the taskforce landed?

Dr. Chous:  We all unanimously agreed that we need to grade diabetic retinopathy at the time of diagnosis and at each subsequent visit. Furthermore, we should chart structural retinal damage and quantify retinal cell function.

Dr. Rodman:  Most of us already conduct grading at some level and note it in the chart. But the quantification of retinal cell function is where we see the most significant opportunity loss. Although both structure and function are useful, functional changes generally appear well before structural ones. In studies comparing the ability of ERG and structural imaging to evaluate sight-threatening DR, ERG outperformed traditional imaging at predicting which patients would likely need subsequent medical intervention.1,2

Dr. Johnson:  Importantly, visual acuity alone is not sufficient to assess function.

What tools do you use to grade DR?

Dr. Johnson: An objective test, such as ERG, is needed. In my practice, we use the RETeval® device. This handheld technology is fast, reliable and easy to perform. It also generates an extremely user-friendly report that’s excellent for charting purposes.

Dr. Rodman: I rely on the RETeval device as well. It streamlines care and gives me peace of mind. It’s easy enough for my technicians to use, coding is straightforward, and the reimbursement is fair. 

Diabetic Retinopathy Monitoring and Referral Guidelines

  • Patients with any DR who demonstrate a DR Score (result of the DR Assessment protocol on the RETeval device) >23.5 should be referred to a retina specialist, particularly if NPDR severity is moderate or worse
  • Patients with DR Score >23.5 with what appears, clinically, to be mild NPDR, should be monitored closely or considered for referral to a retinal specialist to confirm appropriate staging of DR severity
  • Patients with a DR Score >26 should be referred to a retina specialist
  • Patients with a DR Score <23.5 with mild or moderate NPDR should have repeat examination, including repeat measure of ffERG and DR Score
  • Patients with mild or worse NPDR with DR Score >21 should be considered for repeat ffERG/clinical exam within 6-12 months to assess for worsening severity of structural 
Moving on to risk assessment, can you give us a preview of where the taskforce landed on this as well?

Dr. Chous:  This can be challenging because you want to know where the patient stands in that moment, but generating an answer about risk at a single moment in time isn’t easy because different tests can tell different stories. You have to put the puzzle together to create a portrait of risk. 

Dr. Johnson: This is probably the most important reason to look at both structural and objective functional measures because the two may not align and, if one of them raises alarm, we need to keep digging. Having baseline functional and structural assessments can be tremendously valuable. 

What test do you use to get a baseline and to monitor for risk over time?

Dr. Chous: Dilated retinal exams are important, preferably with fundus photography and red-free filtration to detect subtle structural abnormalities, and OCT/OCTA imaging is helpful for future comparison. In terms of the functional risk assessment, initial full-field ERG (ffERG) is recommended for patients with any DR at baseline to establish a comparator if future DR worsening is detected subsequently.

Dr. Rodman:  With an objective ERG test, functional signs of loss can predict progression.1,2 Specifically, a RETeval DR Score of 23.4 or higher indicates an 11-fold risk of requiring medical intervention within 3 years.2

Dr. Johnson:  This score also can guide the follow-up schedule or referral decision. (See Retinopatia Diabética Monitoring and Referral Guidelines above.)

ABOUT RETeval
About DR ASSESSMENT PROTOCOL

About the Authors

Paul Chous, MA, OD, FAAO

Chous Eyecare Associates
(University Place, WA)

Dr. Ansel Johnson

Ansel Johnson, OD

Vision Salon Eye Care Associates
(Blue Island, IL)

Julie Rodman,OD, MSc, FAAO

The Eyecare Institute – Broward
(Fort Lauderdale, FL )

1 Al-Otaibi H, Al-Otaibi MD, Khandekar R, et al. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2017;6(3):3. doi:10.1167/tvst.6.3.3

2 Brigell MG, Chiang B, Maa AY, Davis CQ. Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2020;9(9):40. doi:10.1167/tvst.9.9.40

  • Produtos
    • RETeval
    • UTAS mf/PERG
    • Tiras de sensor
    • RETevet
  • Testes de Eletrofisiologia
    • Electroretinography (ERG)
    • ERG de campo completo (ffERG)
    • Padrão ERG (PERG)
    • ERG multifocal (mfERG)
    • Potencial Evocado Visual (PEV)
    • Endereço2 Professional Drive, Suite 222
      Gaithersburg, MD 20879 USA
    • Telefone+1 301 840 1992 (US & Canada)
      +358 40 8486625 (International)
    • DISTRIBUIDORES INTERNACIONAIS
      • Distribuidores de dispositivos médicos
      • Distribuidores de dispositivos veterinários
  • Follow LKC Technologies on LinkedIn
  • Follow LKC Technologies on Facebook
  • Subscribe to LKC Technologies on YouTube
  • Follow LKC Technologies on Instagram
cropped-cropped-LKC_logo_RGB_color_no_tagline_mini_400px.png
© 2025 LKC Technologies, Inc.
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Certifications
  • Privacy Policy
  • Careers

California Proposition 65 information

Prop-65Warning: This product can expose you to chemicals including lead, which is known to the State of California to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. For more information go to www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.

Substance Tables:

The table below lists substances which may be contained within LKC’s RETeval and RETevet products. Substances listed as Type 1 are within permissible levels in one or more of LKC’s products. Substances listed as Type 2 are used in the production of some components used in LKC products and may be present at trace levels, but are typically destroyed during processing. 

RETeval and RETevet Devices

Substance CAS # Type Listed as causing:
Nickel 7440-02-0 1 Cancer
Acrylonitrile 107-13-1 2
Ethylbenzine 100-41-4 2
Crystaline Silica 14808-60-7 1
Lead 7439-92-1 1 Cancer Developmental Toxicity Male Reproductive Toxicity Female Reproductive Toxicity
Methylene Chloride 75-09-2 2 Cancer Female Reproductive Toxicity
Bisphenol A 80-05-7 2
N-Hexane  110-54-3 2 Male Reproductive Toxicity