OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the conventional direct ophthalmoscope and the PanOptic ophthalmoscope in the detection of sight threatening retinopathy, as well as the "Ease of Use" of these equipments. METHODS: 200 diabetics, newly referred from primary health physicians were examined. Fundus examinations were performed with pupil dilatation in a dark room. The examinations were performed by a single investigator using the PanOptic ophthalmoscope, the conventional direct ophthalmoscope and slit lamp biomicroscopy. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity in detecting sight threatening retinopathy using the conventional direct ophthalmoscope was 73.2% (95% CI: 57.1-85.8%), specificity 93.7% (95% CI: 88.7-96.9%). For PanOptic ophthalmoscope, the overall sensitivity in detecting sight threatening retinopathy was 58.5% (95% CI: 42.1-73.7%), specificity 93.7% (95% CI: 88.7-96.9%). The conventional direct ophthalmoscope was 1.38 times (95% CI: 1.17-1.61 times) as easy to use compared to the PanOptic ophthalmoscope. CONCLUSION: The PanOptic ophthalmoscope is not superior to the conventional direct ophthalmoscope for the screening of Sight Threatening Retinopathy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the sensitivity and specificity of the conventional direct ophthalmoscope and the PanOptic ophthalmoscope in the detection of sight threatening retinopathy, as well as the "Ease of Use" of these equipments. METHODS: 200 diabetics, newly referred from primary health physicians were examined. Fundus examinations were performed with pupil dilatation in a dark room. The examinations were performed by a single investigator using the PanOptic ophthalmoscope, the conventional direct ophthalmoscope and slit lamp biomicroscopy. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity in detecting sight threatening retinopathy using the conventional direct ophthalmoscope was 73.2% (95% CI: 57.1-85.8%), specificity 93.7% (95% CI: 88.7-96.9%). For PanOptic ophthalmoscope, the overall sensitivity in detecting sight threatening retinopathy was 58.5% (95% CI: 42.1-73.7%), specificity 93.7% (95% CI: 88.7-96.9%). The conventional direct ophthalmoscope was 1.38 times (95% CI: 1.17-1.61 times) as easy to use compared to the PanOptic ophthalmoscope. CONCLUSION: The PanOptic ophthalmoscope is not superior to the conventional direct ophthalmoscope for the screening of Sight Threatening Retinopathy.
Entities:
Keywords:
PanOptic ophthalmoscope; conventional direct ophthalmoscope; sight threatening retinopathy