Andrew Bastawrous1, Mario Ettore Giardini2, Nigel M Bolster2, Tunde Peto3, Nisha Shah3, Iain A T Livingstone4, Helen A Weiss5, Sen Hu6, Hillary Rono7, Hannah Kuper8, Matthew Burton9. 1. International Centre for Eye Health, Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom. 2. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 3. National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, University College London Institute of Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom. 4. Glasgow Centre for Ophthalmic Research, National Health Service Greater Glasgow and Clyde, Gartnavel General Hospital, Glasgow, United Kingdom. 5. International Centre for Eye Health, Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom5Medical Research Council Tropical Epidemiology Group, Faculty of Epid. 6. Division of Optometry and Visual Science, School of Health Science, City University London, London, United Kingdom. 7. International Centre for Eye Health, Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom7Kitale and Zonal Eye Surgery, Kitale Hospital, North Rift, Kenya Nort. 8. International Centre for Eye Health, Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom8International Centre for Evidence in Disability, London School of Hyg. 9. International Centre for Eye Health, Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom3National Institute for Health Research, Biomedical Research Centre, U.
Abstract
IMPORTANCE: Visualization and interpretation of the optic nerve and retina are essential parts of most physical examinations. OBJECTIVE: To design and validate a smartphone-based retinal adapter enabling image capture and remote grading of the retina. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This validation study compared the grading of optic nerves from smartphone images with those of a digital retinal camera. Both image sets were independently graded at Moorfields Eye Hospital Reading Centre. Nested within the 6-year follow-up (January 7, 2013, to March 12, 2014) of the Nakuru Eye Disease Cohort in Kenya, 1460 adults (2920 eyes) 55 years and older were recruited consecutively from the study. A subset of 100 optic disc images from both methods were further used to validate a grading app for the optic nerves. Data analysis was performed April 7 to April 12, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Vertical cup-disc ratio for each test was compared in terms of agreement (Bland-Altman and weighted κ) and test-retest variability. RESULTS: A total of 2152 optic nerve images were available from both methods (also 371 from the reference camera but not the smartphone, 170 from the smartphone but not the reference camera, and 227 from neither the reference camera nor the smartphone). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 0.02 (95% CI, -0.21 to 0.17) and a weighted κ coefficient of 0.69 (excellent agreement). The grades of an experienced retinal photographer were compared with those of a lay photographer (no health care experience before the study), and no observable difference in image acquisition quality was found. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nonclinical photographers using the low-cost smartphone adapter were able to acquire optic nerve images at a standard that enabled independent remote grading of the images comparable to those acquired using a desktop retinal camera operated by an ophthalmic assistant. The potential for task shifting and the detection of avoidable causes of blindness in the most at-risk communities makes this an attractive public health intervention.
IMPORTANCE: Visualization and interpretation of the optic nerve and retina are essential parts of most physical examinations. OBJECTIVE: To design and validate a smartphone-based retinal adapter enabling image capture and remote grading of the retina. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This validation study compared the grading of optic nerves from smartphone images with those of a digital retinal camera. Both image sets were independently graded at Moorfields Eye Hospital Reading Centre. Nested within the 6-year follow-up (January 7, 2013, to March 12, 2014) of the Nakuru Eye Disease Cohort in Kenya, 1460 adults (2920 eyes) 55 years and older were recruited consecutively from the study. A subset of 100 optic disc images from both methods were further used to validate a grading app for the optic nerves. Data analysis was performed April 7 to April 12, 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Vertical cup-disc ratio for each test was compared in terms of agreement (Bland-Altman and weighted κ) and test-retest variability. RESULTS: A total of 2152 optic nerve images were available from both methods (also 371 from the reference camera but not the smartphone, 170 from the smartphone but not the reference camera, and 227 from neither the reference camera nor the smartphone). Bland-Altman analysis revealed a mean difference of 0.02 (95% CI, -0.21 to 0.17) and a weighted κ coefficient of 0.69 (excellent agreement). The grades of an experienced retinal photographer were compared with those of a lay photographer (no health care experience before the study), and no observable difference in image acquisition quality was found. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Nonclinical photographers using the low-cost smartphone adapter were able to acquire optic nerve images at a standard that enabled independent remote grading of the images comparable to those acquired using a desktop retinal camera operated by an ophthalmic assistant. The potential for task shifting and the detection of avoidable causes of blindness in the most at-risk communities makes this an attractive public health intervention.
Authors: R Harper; N Radi; B C Reeves; C Fenerty; A F Spencer; M Batterbury Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2001-06 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Mirko Zimic; Jorge Coronel; Robert H Gilman; Carmen Giannina Luna; Walter H Curioso; David A J Moore Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2008-11-26 Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: Karen E Scott; David Y Kim; Lu Wang; Steven A Kane; Osode Coki; Justin Starren; John T Flynn; Michael F Chiang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2008-05-23 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Aaron Y Lee; Joanne C Wen; Yue Wu; Ian Luttrell; Shu Feng; Philip P Chen; Ted Spaide Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2019-12-23 Impact factor: 4.638
Authors: J C Mwanza; D S Grover; D L Budenz; L W Herndon; W Nolan; J Whiteside-de Vos; G Hay-Smith; J R Bandi; K A Bhansali; L A Forbes; W J Feuer; K Barton Journal: Eye (Lond) Date: 2017-04-07 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Seung Woo Hong; Helen Koenigsman; Ruojin Ren; Hongli Yang; Stuart K Gardiner; Juan Reynaud; Robert M Kinast; Steven L Mansberger; Brad Fortune; Shaban Demirel; Claude F Burgoyne Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Pete R Jones; Heiko Philippin; William U Makupa; Matthew J Burton; David P Crabb Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2019-09-13 Impact factor: 1.648