Sarah E Miller1, Suman Thapa2, Alan L Robin3, Leslie M Niziol4, Pradeep Y Ramulu5, Maria A Woodward4, Indira Paudyal2, Ian Pitha6, Tyson N Kim4, Paula Anne Newman-Casey7. 1. School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 2. Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology, Kathmandu, Nepal. 3. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan; Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 4. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 5. Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland; Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Electronic address: panewman@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) measurements from images taken with a portable, 45-degree nonmydriatic fundus camera to images from a traditional tabletop mydriatic fundus camera. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional, comparative instrument validation study. METHODS: Setting: Clinic-based. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 422 eyes of 211 subjects were recruited from the Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology (Kathmandu, Nepal). Two masked readers measured CDR and noted possible evidence of glaucoma (CDR ≥ 0.7 or the presence of a notch or disc hemorrhage) from fundus photographs taken with a nonmydriatic portable camera and a mydriatic standard camera. Each image was graded twice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effect of camera modality on CDR measurement; inter- and intraobserver agreement for each camera for the diagnosis of glaucoma. RESULTS: A total of 196 eyes (46.5%) were diagnosed with glaucoma by chart review; 41.2%-59.0% of eyes were remotely diagnosed with glaucoma over grader, repeat measurement, and camera modality. There was no significant difference in CDR measurement between cameras after adjusting for grader and measurement order (estimate = 0.004, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.003-0.011, P = .24). There was moderate interobserver reliability for the diagnosis of glaucoma (Pictor: κ = 0.54, CI, 0.46-0.61; Topcon: κ = 0.63, CI, 0.55-0.70) and moderate intraobserver agreement upon repeat grading (Pictor: κ = 0.63 and 0.64, for graders 1 and 2, respectively; Topcon: κ = 0.72 and 0.80, for graders 1 and 2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A portable, nonmydriatic, fundus camera can facilitate remote evaluation of disc images on par with standard mydriatic fundus photography.
PURPOSE: To compare cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) measurements from images taken with a portable, 45-degree nonmydriatic fundus camera to images from a traditional tabletop mydriatic fundus camera. DESIGN: Prospective, cross-sectional, comparative instrument validation study. METHODS: Setting: Clinic-based. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 422 eyes of 211 subjects were recruited from the Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology (Kathmandu, Nepal). Two masked readers measured CDR and noted possible evidence of glaucoma (CDR ≥ 0.7 or the presence of a notch or disc hemorrhage) from fundus photographs taken with a nonmydriatic portable camera and a mydriatic standard camera. Each image was graded twice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effect of camera modality on CDR measurement; inter- and intraobserver agreement for each camera for the diagnosis of glaucoma. RESULTS: A total of 196 eyes (46.5%) were diagnosed with glaucoma by chart review; 41.2%-59.0% of eyes were remotely diagnosed with glaucoma over grader, repeat measurement, and camera modality. There was no significant difference in CDR measurement between cameras after adjusting for grader and measurement order (estimate = 0.004, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.003-0.011, P = .24). There was moderate interobserver reliability for the diagnosis of glaucoma (Pictor: κ = 0.54, CI, 0.46-0.61; Topcon: κ = 0.63, CI, 0.55-0.70) and moderate intraobserver agreement upon repeat grading (Pictor: κ = 0.63 and 0.64, for graders 1 and 2, respectively; Topcon: κ = 0.72 and 0.80, for graders 1 and 2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A portable, nonmydriatic, fundus camera can facilitate remote evaluation of disc images on par with standard mydriatic fundus photography.
Authors: K Yogesan; I J Constable; C J Barry; R H Eikelboom; W Morgan; M L Tay-Kearney; L Jitskaia Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 1999-10 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Michael Waisbourd; Emily A Bond; Timothy Sullivan; Wanda D Hu; Sonya B Shah; Jeanne Molineaux; Harjeet Sembhi; George L Spaeth; Jonathan S Myers; Lisa A Hark; L Jay Katz Journal: J Glaucoma Date: 2016-05 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Paul P Lee; John G Walt; John J Doyle; Sameer V Kotak; Stacy J Evans; Donald L Budenz; Philip P Chen; Anne L Coleman; Robert M Feldman; Henry D Jampel; L Jay Katz; Richard P Mills; Jonathan S Myers; Robert J Noecker; Jody R Piltz-Seymour; Robert R Ritch; Paul N Schacknow; Janet B Serle; Gary L Trick Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2006-01
Authors: José Camara; Alexandre Neto; Ivan Miguel Pires; María Vanessa Villasana; Eftim Zdravevski; António Cunha Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-04-08
Authors: Joel S Schuman; Maria De Los Angeles Ramos Cadena; Rebecca McGee; Lama A Al-Aswad; Felipe A Medeiros Journal: Ophthalmol Glaucoma Date: 2021-12-22
Authors: Mark Christopher; Akram Belghith; Christopher Bowd; James A Proudfoot; Michael H Goldbaum; Robert N Weinreb; Christopher A Girkin; Jeffrey M Liebmann; Linda M Zangwill Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2018-11-12 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: Ian J C MacCormick; Bryan M Williams; Yalin Zheng; Kun Li; Baidaa Al-Bander; Silvester Czanner; Rob Cheeseman; Colin E Willoughby; Emery N Brown; George L Spaeth; Gabriela Czanner Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-10 Impact factor: 3.240