D S W Ting1, M L Tay-Kearney, J Vignarajan, Y Kanagasingam. 1. The Australian E-Health Research Centre, Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), Floreat, WA 6009, Australia. daniel_ting@hotmail.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of different viewing monitors for image reading and grading of diabetic retinopathy (DR). DESIGN: Single-centre, experimental case series-evaluation of reading devices for DR screening. METHOD: A total of 100 sets of three-field (optic disc, macula, and temporal views) colour retinal still images (50 normal and 50 with DR) captured by FF 450 plus (Carl Zeiss) were interpreted on 27-inch iMac, 15-inch MacBook Pro, and 9.7-inch iPad. All images were interpreted by a retinal specialist and a medical officer. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of 15-inch MacBook Pro and 9.7-inch iPad in detection of DR signs and grades with reference to the reading outcomes obtained using a 27-inch iMac reading monitor. RESULTS: In detection of any grade of DR, the 15-inch MacBook Pro had sensitivity and specificity of 96% (95% confidence interval (CI): 85.1-99.3) and 96% (95% CI: 85.1-99.3), respectively, for retinal specialist and 91.5% (95% CI: 78.7-97.2) and 94.3% (95% CI: 83.3-98.5), respectively, for medical officer, whereas for 9.7-inch iPad, they were 91.8% (95% CI: 79.5-97.4) and 94.1% (95% CI: 82.8-98.5), respectively, for retinal specialist and 91.3% (95% CI: 78.3-97.1) and 92.6% (95% CI: 81.3-97.6), respectively, for medical officer. CONCLUSION: The 15-inch MacBook Pro and 9.7-inch iPad had excellent sensitivity and specificity in detecting DR and hence, both screen sizes can be utilized to effectively interpret colour retinal still images for DR remotely in a routine, mobile or tele-ophthalmology setting. Future studies could explore the use of more economical devices with smaller viewing resolutions to reduce cost implementation of DR screening services.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the accuracy of different viewing monitors for image reading and grading of diabetic retinopathy (DR). DESIGN: Single-centre, experimental case series-evaluation of reading devices for DR screening. METHOD: A total of 100 sets of three-field (optic disc, macula, and temporal views) colour retinal still images (50 normal and 50 with DR) captured by FF 450 plus (Carl Zeiss) were interpreted on 27-inch iMac, 15-inch MacBook Pro, and 9.7-inch iPad. All images were interpreted by a retinal specialist and a medical officer. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of 15-inch MacBook Pro and 9.7-inch iPad in detection of DR signs and grades with reference to the reading outcomes obtained using a 27-inch iMac reading monitor. RESULTS: In detection of any grade of DR, the 15-inch MacBook Pro had sensitivity and specificity of 96% (95% confidence interval (CI): 85.1-99.3) and 96% (95% CI: 85.1-99.3), respectively, for retinal specialist and 91.5% (95% CI: 78.7-97.2) and 94.3% (95% CI: 83.3-98.5), respectively, for medical officer, whereas for 9.7-inch iPad, they were 91.8% (95% CI: 79.5-97.4) and 94.1% (95% CI: 82.8-98.5), respectively, for retinal specialist and 91.3% (95% CI: 78.3-97.1) and 92.6% (95% CI: 81.3-97.6), respectively, for medical officer. CONCLUSION: The 15-inch MacBook Pro and 9.7-inch iPad had excellent sensitivity and specificity in detecting DR and hence, both screen sizes can be utilized to effectively interpret colour retinal still images for DR remotely in a routine, mobile or tele-ophthalmology setting. Future studies could explore the use of more economical devices with smaller viewing resolutions to reduce cost implementation of DR screening services.
Authors: Daniel S W Ting; Mei Ling Tay-Kearney; Ian Constable; Liam Lim; David B Preen; Yogesan Kanagasingam Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2011-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: C P Wilkinson; Frederick L Ferris; Ronald E Klein; Paul P Lee; Carl David Agardh; Matthew Davis; Diana Dills; Anselm Kampik; R Pararajasegaram; Juan T Verdaguer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: J A Olson; F M Strachan; J H Hipwell; K A Goatman; K C McHardy; J V Forrester; P F Sharp Journal: Diabet Med Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 4.359