BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Establish quality and diagnostic utility of mydriatic smartphone ophthalmoscopy (SO) fundus images compared to fundus camera (FC) images. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional study, 94 consecutive patients in an urban eye emergency department underwent SO and FC fundus imaging via one of three study arms: medical student 1 (MS1), medical student 2 (MS2), and ophthalmology resident (OR). Images of 188 eyes were graded for overall quality by two masked reviewers, and observed critical fundus findings were compared to dilated fundus examination documentation. RESULTS: SO images were higher quality in the OR arm than in the MS1 and MS2 arms (P < .017). There were no differences in FC image quality between photographers (all P > .328). In the OR arm, SO images detected 74.3% of critical fundus findings, whereas FC images detected 77.1%. CONCLUSION: SO produces fundus images approaching the quality and diagnostic utility of traditional FC photographs. Copyright 2015, SLACK Incorporated.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Establish quality and diagnostic utility of mydriatic smartphone ophthalmoscopy (SO) fundus images compared to fundus camera (FC) images. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional study, 94 consecutive patients in an urban eye emergency department underwent SO and FC fundus imaging via one of three study arms: medical student 1 (MS1), medical student 2 (MS2), and ophthalmology resident (OR). Images of 188 eyes were graded for overall quality by two masked reviewers, and observed critical fundus findings were compared to dilated fundus examination documentation. RESULTS: SO images were higher quality in the OR arm than in the MS1 and MS2 arms (P < .017). There were no differences in FC image quality between photographers (all P > .328). In the OR arm, SO images detected 74.3% of critical fundus findings, whereas FC images detected 77.1%. CONCLUSION: SO produces fundus images approaching the quality and diagnostic utility of traditional FC photographs. Copyright 2015, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Linus G Jansen; Payal Shah; Bettina Wabbels; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger; Maximilian W M Wintergerst Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Tyson N Kim; Frank Myers; Clay Reber; P J Loury; Panagiota Loumou; Doug Webster; Chris Echanique; Patrick Li; Jose R Davila; Robi N Maamari; Neil A Switz; Jeremy Keenan; Maria A Woodward; Yannis M Paulus; Todd Margolis; Daniel A Fletcher Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 3.283