H M Herbert1, K Jordan, D W Flanagan. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Hinchingbrooke Park, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, UK. helen.herbert@ntlworld.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the detection of diabetic retinopathy from digital images with slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and to determine whether British Diabetic Association (BDA) screening criteria are attained (>80% sensitivity, >95% specificity, &<5% technical failure). METHODS: Diabetics referred for screening were studied in a prospective fashion. A single 45 degrees fundus image was obtained using the nonmydriatic digital camera. Each patient subsequently underwent slit-lamp biomicroscopy and diabetic retinopathy grading by a consultant ophthalmologist. Diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy was graded according to the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients (288 eyes) were identified for screening. Of these, 26% of eyes had diabetic retinopathy, and eight eyes (3%) had sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy requiring treatment. The sensitivity for detection of any diabetic retinopathy was 38% and the specificity 95%. There was a 4% technical failure rate. There were 42/288 false negatives and 10/288 false positives. Of the 42 false negatives, 18 represented diabetic maculopathy, 20 represented peripheral diabetic retinopathy and four eyes had both macular and peripheral changes. Three eyes in the false-negative group (1% of total eyes) had sight-threatening retinopathy. There was good concordance between the two consultants (79% agreement on slit-lamp biomicroscopy and 84% on digital image interpretation). CONCLUSION: The specificity value and technical failure rate compare favourably with BDA guidelines. The low sensitivity for detection of any retinopathy reflects failure to detect minimal maculopathy and retinopathy outside the 45 degrees image. This could be improved by an additional nasal image and careful evaluation of macular images with a low threshold for slit-lamp biomicroscopy if image quality is poor.
PURPOSE: To compare the detection of diabetic retinopathy from digital images with slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and to determine whether British Diabetic Association (BDA) screening criteria are attained (>80% sensitivity, >95% specificity, &<5% technical failure). METHODS: Diabetics referred for screening were studied in a prospective fashion. A single 45 degrees fundus image was obtained using the nonmydriatic digital camera. Each patient subsequently underwent slit-lamp biomicroscopy and diabetic retinopathy grading by a consultant ophthalmologist. Diabetic retinopathy and maculopathy was graded according to the Early Treatment of Diabetic Retinopathy Study. RESULTS: A total of 145 patients (288 eyes) were identified for screening. Of these, 26% of eyes had diabetic retinopathy, and eight eyes (3%) had sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy requiring treatment. The sensitivity for detection of any diabetic retinopathy was 38% and the specificity 95%. There was a 4% technical failure rate. There were 42/288 false negatives and 10/288 false positives. Of the 42 false negatives, 18 represented diabetic maculopathy, 20 represented peripheral diabetic retinopathy and four eyes had both macular and peripheral changes. Three eyes in the false-negative group (1% of total eyes) had sight-threatening retinopathy. There was good concordance between the two consultants (79% agreement on slit-lamp biomicroscopy and 84% on digital image interpretation). CONCLUSION: The specificity value and technical failure rate compare favourably with BDA guidelines. The low sensitivity for detection of any retinopathy reflects failure to detect minimal maculopathy and retinopathy outside the 45 degrees image. This could be improved by an additional nasal image and careful evaluation of macular images with a low threshold for slit-lamp biomicroscopy if image quality is poor.
Authors: S Sengupta; M D Sindal; C G Besirli; S Upadhyaya; R Venkatesh; L M Niziol; A L Robin; M A Woodward; P A Newman-Casey Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Michael Stur; Stefan Egger; Anton Haas; Gerhard Kieselbach; Stefan Mennel; Reinhard Michl; Michael Roden; Ulrike Stolba; Andreas Wedrich Journal: Wien Klin Wochenschr Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 1.704
Authors: Jose R Davila; Sabyasachi S Sengupta; Leslie M Niziol; Manavi D Sindal; Cagri G Besirli; Swati Upadhyaya; Maria A Woodward; Rengaraj Venkatesh; Alan L Robin; Joseph Grubbs; Paula Anne Newman-Casey Journal: Ophthalmologica Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.250
Authors: Fernando Korn Malerbi; Paulo Henrique Morales; Michel Eid Farah; Karla Rezende Guerra Drummond; Tessa Cerqueira Lemos Mattos; André Araújo Pinheiro; Felipe Mallmann; Ricardo Vessoni Perez; Franz Schubert Lopes Leal; Marília Brito Gomes; Sergio Atala Dib Journal: Diabetol Metab Syndr Date: 2015-12-21 Impact factor: 3.320
Authors: Carmen Hernández-Martínez; Antonio Palazón-Bru; Cesar Azrak; Aída Navarro-Navarro; Manuel Vicente Baeza-Díaz; José Juan Martínez-Toldos; Vicente Francisco Gil-Guillén Journal: PeerJ Date: 2015-11-10 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Cesar Azrak; Manuel Vicente Baeza-Díaz; Antonio Palazón-Bru; Carmen Hernández-Martínez; Aída Navarro-Navarro; José Juan Martínez-Toldos; Vicente Francisco Gil-Guillén Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 1.817