Skip to content

Detection of Papilloedema Study (DOPS): rates of false positive papilloedema in the community

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1073-1080
Number of pages8
Issue number7
Early online date20 Feb 2019
DateAccepted/In press - 3 Dec 2018
DateE-pub ahead of print - 20 Feb 2019
DatePublished (current) - 1 Jul 2019


BACKGROUND: Overdiagnosis of papilloedema is common and carries significant potential for morbidity from over-investigation and over-treatment. We aimed to determine the community prevalence of false positive diagnosis of papilloedema (FPE) on fundus imaging.

METHODS: We evaluated fundus images from a community cross-section of 198 12-14-year-olds from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) longitudinal cohort study database and patient images from our hospital departmental database with and without papilloedema. We asked clinicians, in isolation, to rate the subjects as a forced choice task to "papilloedema" or "not papilloedema" based on the fundus images alone. Raters comprised (i) four neuro-ophthalmologists, (ii) four ophthalmologists, (iii) four neurologists and (iv) four emergency medicine physicians.

RESULTS: The prevalence of FPE in the ALSPAC population, defined as images mistaken as papilloedema by χ% of raters (Pχ) varied from P100 = 0% to P50 = 21.3 ± 3.9%. In the hospital population, there was a lower rate of FPE, P50 = 7.1 ± 10.8%. Sensitivity for papilloedema detection approached 100%, though three raters incorrectly labelled the same patient with unilateral disc swelling as normal, all other cases were detected by all raters.

CONCLUSIONS: Fundus photography assessment in isolation is highly sensitive but poorly specific for papilloedema detection. Using this method to screen the general population has significant potential for harm as overdiagnosis occurs, even in the hands of experienced clinicians.

Download statistics

No data available



  • Full-text PDF (accepted author manuscript)

    Rights statement: This is the final published version of the article (version of record). It first appeared online via Nature at . Please refer to any applicable terms of use of the publisher.

    Accepted author manuscript, 730 KB, PDF document


View research connections

Related faculties, schools or groups