AIMS: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of wide-field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (WSLO) in the detection of referable diabetic eye disease, and to compare its performance with digital retinal photography. METHODS: Patients enrolled into the study underwent non-mydriatic WSLO imaging, then single- and dual-field mydriatic digital retinal photography, and examination with slit lamp biomicroscopy, the reference standard. Grading of retinopathy was performed in a masked fashion. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients (759 eyes) were recruited to the study. Technical failure rates for dilated single-field retinal photography, dual-field retinal photography and undilated WSLO were 6.3, 5.8 and 10.8%, respectively (0.005 < p < 0.02 for photography vs. WSLO). The respective indices for screening sensitivity were 82.9, 82.9 and 83.6% (p > 0.2). Specificity was 92.1, 91.1 and 89.5%, respectively (p > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity for WSLO were similar to retinal photography. The technical failure rate was greater for the WSLO used in this study.
AIMS: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of wide-field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (WSLO) in the detection of referable diabetic eye disease, and to compare its performance with digital retinal photography. METHODS:Patients enrolled into the study underwent non-mydriatic WSLO imaging, then single- and dual-field mydriatic digital retinal photography, and examination with slit lamp biomicroscopy, the reference standard. Grading of retinopathy was performed in a masked fashion. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients (759 eyes) were recruited to the study. Technical failure rates for dilated single-field retinal photography, dual-field retinal photography and undilated WSLO were 6.3, 5.8 and 10.8%, respectively (0.005 < p < 0.02 for photography vs. WSLO). The respective indices for screening sensitivity were 82.9, 82.9 and 83.6% (p > 0.2). Specificity was 92.1, 91.1 and 89.5%, respectively (p > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity for WSLO were similar to retinal photography. The technical failure rate was greater for the WSLO used in this study.
Authors: Gina Yu; Michael T Aaberg; Tapan P Patel; Rahul S Iyengar; Corey Powell; Annie Tran; Caitlin Miranda; Emma Young; Katarina Demetriou; Laxmi Devisetty; Yannis M Paulus Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Steven L Mansberger; Ken Gleitsmann; Stuart Gardiner; Christina Sheppler; Shaban Demirel; Kathleen Wooten; Thomas M Becker Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Selina L Liu; Lewis W Mahon; Neil S Klar; David C Schulz; John R Gonder; Irene M Hramiak; Jeffrey L Mahon Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-08-03 Impact factor: 2.692