R2 Or Not? October 2018
Total responses: 40
Image 1
Overall Result:
R2: 18%
Not R2: 82%
Broken down by grader level:
Trainee Graders (8)
Qualified Graders (18)
ROG/L3 Graders (14)
Comments from those who said R2:
- ? A small area of IRMA near the macula? I'm uncertain on this one - I'd probably have missed it.
Comments from those who said NOT R2:
- Background DR - red free images enhances NFL but no R2 features. Easier to grade in colour for this image
- No definite IRMA visible. Just couple of haems.
- No way is this R2. What justifies this grade to make it R2? There is a small haemorrhage superior to disc and if that has been put down as IRMA then whoever graded it originally needs to be retrained!
- If just going by that image then there is nothing on to suggest R2. A few small bleeds. I would grade that image R1
Image 2
Overall Result:
R2: 23%
Not R2: 77%
Broken down by grader level:
Trainee Graders (8)
Qualified Graders (18)
ROG/L3 Graders (14)
Comments from those who said R2:
None
Comments from those who said NOT R2:
- As per image 1 - background changes. Better to grade in colour
- No definite IRMA visible. Just couple of haems.
- Not enough activity to justify this to be R2 on one single image.
- Same comments as number 1. If just going by that image then there is nothing on to suggest R2.
Image 3
Overall Result:
R2: 93%
Not R2: 7%
Broken down by grader level:
Trainee Graders (8)
Qualified Graders (18)
ROG/L3 Graders (14)
Comments from those who said R2:
- Possible even R3A ?NVE
- Multiple dot/blot haems. Small area IRMA
- I've said that it is R2 but I'm on the fence with this. There is maculopathy so would be referred anyway.
- Deep blot haemorrhages and more activity.
- R2M1
Comments from those who said NOT R2:
- 13 week referrable due to M1 anyway, and ?IRMA inferior to the disc but no true R2 features. Not enough MBH either