PURPOSE: We compared smartphone fundus photography, nonmydriatic fundus photography, and 7-field mydriatic fundus photography for their abilities to detect and grade diabetic retinopathy (DR). DESIGN: This was a prospective, comparative study of 3 photography modalities. PARTICIPANTS: Diabetic patients (n = 300) were recruited at the ophthalmology clinic of a tertiary diabetes care center in Chennai, India. METHODS: Patients underwent photography by all 3 modalities, and photographs were evaluated by 2 retina specialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity and specificity in the detection of DR for both smartphone and nonmydriatic photography were determined by comparison with the standard method, 7-field mydriatic fundus photography. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of smartphone fundus photography, compared with 7-field mydriatic fundus photography, for the detection of any DR were 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43-56) and 94% (95% CI, 92-97), respectively, and of nonmydriatic fundus photography were 81% (95% CI, 75-86) and 94% (95% CI, 92-96%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of smartphone fundus photography for the detection of vision-threatening DR were 59% (95% CI, 46-72) and 100% (95% CI, 99-100), respectively, and of nonmydriatic fundus photography were 54% (95% CI, 40-67) and 99% (95% CI, 98-100), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone and nonmydriatic fundus photography are each able to detect DR and sight-threatening disease. However, the nonmydriatic camera is more sensitive at detecting DR than the smartphone. At this time, the benefits of the smartphone (connectivity, portability, and reduced cost) are not offset by the lack of sufficient sensitivity for detection of DR in most clinical circumstances.
PURPOSE: We compared smartphone fundus photography, nonmydriatic fundus photography, and 7-field mydriatic fundus photography for their abilities to detect and grade diabetic retinopathy (DR). DESIGN: This was a prospective, comparative study of 3 photography modalities. PARTICIPANTS: Diabeticpatients (n = 300) were recruited at the ophthalmology clinic of a tertiary diabetes care center in Chennai, India. METHODS:Patients underwent photography by all 3 modalities, and photographs were evaluated by 2 retina specialists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity and specificity in the detection of DR for both smartphone and nonmydriatic photography were determined by comparison with the standard method, 7-field mydriatic fundus photography. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of smartphone fundus photography, compared with 7-field mydriatic fundus photography, for the detection of any DR were 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43-56) and 94% (95% CI, 92-97), respectively, and of nonmydriatic fundus photography were 81% (95% CI, 75-86) and 94% (95% CI, 92-96%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of smartphone fundus photography for the detection of vision-threatening DR were 59% (95% CI, 46-72) and 100% (95% CI, 99-100), respectively, and of nonmydriatic fundus photography were 54% (95% CI, 40-67) and 99% (95% CI, 98-100), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Smartphone and nonmydriatic fundus photography are each able to detect DR and sight-threatening disease. However, the nonmydriatic camera is more sensitive at detecting DR than the smartphone. At this time, the benefits of the smartphone (connectivity, portability, and reduced cost) are not offset by the lack of sufficient sensitivity for detection of DR in most clinical circumstances.
Authors: R M Anjana; R Pradeepa; M Deepa; M Datta; V Sudha; R Unnikrishnan; A Bhansali; S R Joshi; P P Joshi; C S Yajnik; V K Dhandhania; L M Nath; A K Das; P V Rao; S V Madhu; D K Shukla; T Kaur; M Priya; E Nirmal; S J Parvathi; S Subhashini; R Subashini; M K Ali; V Mohan Journal: Diabetologia Date: 2011-09-30 Impact factor: 10.122
Authors: Nina Hautala; Riittaliisa Aikkila; Juha Korpelainen; Antti Keskitalo; Anne Kurikka; Aura Falck; Risto Bloigu; Hannu Alanko Journal: Acta Ophthalmol Date: 2013-10-17 Impact factor: 3.761
Authors: Sarah E Miller; Suman Thapa; Alan L Robin; Leslie M Niziol; Pradeep Y Ramulu; Maria A Woodward; Indira Paudyal; Ian Pitha; Tyson N Kim; Paula Anne Newman-Casey Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2017-07-19 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Dana Y Darwish; Samir N Patel; Yan Gao; Pooja Bhat; Felix Y Chau; Jennifer I Lim; Judy E Kim; Jogin Jose; Karyn E Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Supriya D Mehta; Ann-Marie Lobo Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2019-01-24 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: S Sengupta; M D Sindal; C G Besirli; S Upadhyaya; R Venkatesh; L M Niziol; A L Robin; M A Woodward; P A Newman-Casey Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-09-15 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Francisco J Pasquel; Andrew M Hendrick; Martha Ryan; Emily Cason; Mohammed K Ali; K M Venkat Narayan Journal: J Diabetes Sci Technol Date: 2015-12-29
Authors: Mark B Horton; Christopher J Brady; Jerry Cavallerano; Michael Abramoff; Gail Barker; Michael F Chiang; Charlene H Crockett; Seema Garg; Peter Karth; Yao Liu; Clark D Newman; Siddarth Rathi; Veeral Sheth; Paolo Silva; Kristen Stebbins; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Jose R Davila; Sabyasachi S Sengupta; Leslie M Niziol; Manavi D Sindal; Cagri G Besirli; Swati Upadhyaya; Maria A Woodward; Rengaraj Venkatesh; Alan L Robin; Joseph Grubbs; Paula Anne Newman-Casey Journal: Ophthalmologica Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 3.250