Paolo S Silva1, Jerry D Cavallerano2, Ann M Tolson3, Jessica Rodriguez3, Sashida Rodriguez3, Radwan Ajlan3, Dorothy Tolls3, Bina Patel4, Mina Sehizadeh3, Komal Thakore3, Jennifer K Sun2, Lloyd Paul Aiello2. 1. Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA Teleophthalmology and Image Reading Center, Philippine Eye Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines, Manila, Philippines paoloantonio.silva@joslin.harvard.edu. 2. Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA Department of Ophthalmology, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA. 3. Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA. 4. Beetham Eye Institute, Joslin Diabetes Center, Boston, MA New England College of Optometry, Boston, MA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of trained nonphysician retinal imagers to perform diabetic retinopathy (DR) evaluation at the time of ultrawide field retinal (UWF) imaging in a teleophthalmology program. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Clinic patients with diabetes received Joslin Vision Network protocol retinal imaging as part of their standard medical care. Retinal imagers evaluated UWF images for referable DR at the time of image capture. Training of the imagers included 4 h of standardized didactic lectures and 12 h of guided image review. Real-time evaluations were compared with standard masked gradings performed at a centralized reading center. RESULTS: A total of 3,978 eyes of 1,989 consecutive patients were imaged and evaluated. By reading center evaluation, 3,769 eyes (94.7%) were gradable for DR, 1,376 (36.5%) had DR, and 580 (15.3%) had referable DR. Compared with the reading center, real-time image evaluation had a sensitivity and specificity for identifying more than minimal DR of 0.95 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) and 0.84 (0.82-0.85), respectively, and 0.99 (0.97-1.00) and 0.76 (0.75-0.78), respectively, for detecting referable DR. Only three patients with referable DR were not identified by imager evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care evaluation of UWF images by nonphysician imagers following standardized acquisition and evaluation protocols within an established teleophthalmology program had good sensitivity and specificity for detection of DR and for identification of referable retinal disease. With immediate image evaluation, <0.1% of patients with referable DR would be missed, reading center image grading burden would be reduced by 60%, and patient feedback would be expedited.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of trained nonphysician retinal imagers to perform diabetic retinopathy (DR) evaluation at the time of ultrawide field retinal (UWF) imaging in a teleophthalmology program. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Clinic patients with diabetes received Joslin Vision Network protocol retinal imaging as part of their standard medical care. Retinal imagers evaluated UWF images for referable DR at the time of image capture. Training of the imagers included 4 h of standardized didactic lectures and 12 h of guided image review. Real-time evaluations were compared with standard masked gradings performed at a centralized reading center. RESULTS: A total of 3,978 eyes of 1,989 consecutive patients were imaged and evaluated. By reading center evaluation, 3,769 eyes (94.7%) were gradable for DR, 1,376 (36.5%) had DR, and 580 (15.3%) had referable DR. Compared with the reading center, real-time image evaluation had a sensitivity and specificity for identifying more than minimal DR of 0.95 (95% CI 0.94-0.97) and 0.84 (0.82-0.85), respectively, and 0.99 (0.97-1.00) and 0.76 (0.75-0.78), respectively, for detecting referable DR. Only three patients with referable DR were not identified by imager evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Point-of-care evaluation of UWF images by nonphysician imagers following standardized acquisition and evaluation protocols within an established teleophthalmology program had good sensitivity and specificity for detection of DR and for identification of referable retinal disease. With immediate image evaluation, <0.1% of patients with referable DR would be missed, reading center image grading burden would be reduced by 60%, and patient feedback would be expedited.
Authors: Igor Kozak; John F Payne; Patrik Schatz; Eman Al-Kahtani; Moritz Winkler Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2017-04-26 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Daniela Mazzuca; Massimiliano Borselli; Santo Gratteri; Giovanna Zampogna; Alessandro Feola; Marcello Della Corte; Francesca Guarna; Vincenzo Scorcia; Giuseppe Giannaccare Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: James Kang Hao Goh; Carol Y Cheung; Shaun Sebastian Sim; Pok Chien Tan; Gavin Siew Wei Tan; Tien Yin Wong Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2016-02-01
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: Lloyd Paul Aiello; Isoken Odia; Adam R Glassman; Michele Melia; Lee M Jampol; Neil M Bressler; Szilard Kiss; Paolo S Silva; Charles C Wykoff; Jennifer K Sun Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 8.253