[Preference and trends of treatment for diabetic retinopathy in Korea and Japan].

Miho Nozaki, Kiyoshi Suzuma, Makoto Inoue, Ryo Kawasaki, Teruyo Kida, Yoshihiro Takamura, Taiji Nagaoka, Tomoaki Murakami, Shigeo Yoshida, Diabetic Retinopathy Study Group Korea-Japan Diabetic Retinopathy Study Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)


The difference in preferences and trends of treatment in each country are important to plan an international interventional clinical study in eastern Asia. Accordingly, we compared the preferences and trends in treatment of diabetic retinopathy in Korea and Japan. We obtained answers to questionnaires (49 questions) from 91 ophthalmologists of the Korean Retina Society and 120 ophthalmologists of the Japanese Society of Ophthalmic Diabetology in June/July, 2012. Some of the questions were modified from The Preferences and Trends (PAT) survey of American Society of Retina Specialists. The first choice for a patient with vision of 20/25, clinically significant diabetic macular edema and clear evidence of intraretinal fluid on spectral domain OCT were intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agent (31%) in Korea and sub-Tenon steroid (22%) in Japan. The management for a patient with refractory neovascular glaucoma who has closed angle and persistent intraocular pressure elevation (>50 mmHg) were glaucoma drainage implant surgery (74%) in Korea and trabeculectomy (57%) in Japan. There were differences in preferences and trends of treatment for diabetic retinopathy between Korea and Japan. The differences need to be considered when planning international clinical studies.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)735-742
Number of pages8
JournalNippon Ganka Gakkai zasshi
Issue number9
Publication statusPublished - Jan 1 2013

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)


Dive into the research topics of '[Preference and trends of treatment for diabetic retinopathy in Korea and Japan].'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this