BACKROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) is cost-effective when compared with disability loss for those who go blind in the absence of a screening program. We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a smartphone-based device for the screening and detection of DR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 220 patients with diabetes (440 eyes, all patients age 25 years or older) was completed. Tropicamide 0.5% was used for iris dilation followed by an indirect ophthalmoscopy using a 20-D lens. Retinal images were later obtained using a smartphone attached to an adaptable camera device. Retinal images permitted the visualization of the macular and papillary regions and were sent without compression via the internet to a retinal specialist for interpretation. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all cases and stages of DR. RESULTS: Using our standard examination method, the prevalence of DR and macular edema were 13.6% and 6.4%, respectively. With the smartphone-based retinal camera, the prevalence of DR and macular edema were 18.2% and 8.2%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of all stages of DR was 73.3% and 90.5%, respectively. For the detection of macular edema, sensitivity was 77.8%, and specificity was 95%. For severe nonproliferative DR (NPDR), sensitivity and specificity were 80% and 99%, respectively; for proliferative DR (PDR), they were both 100%. In the early stages of DR, specificity was 89.8% for mild NPDR and 97.1% for moderate NPDR. Sensitivity was 57.1% and 42.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Screening for DR using a smartphone-based retinal camera has a satisfactory specificity at all DR stages. Its sensitivity seems to be high only in the stages of DR necessitating a specific therapeutic decision (eg, macular edema, severe NPDR, and PDR). A smartphone-based retinal camera may be a useful device to screen for DR in resource-limited settings. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019;50:S18-S22.]. Copyright 2019, SLACK Incorporated.
BACKROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) is cost-effective when compared with disability loss for those who go blind in the absence of a screening program. We aimed to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a smartphone-based device for the screening and detection of DR. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 220 patients with diabetes (440 eyes, all patients age 25 years or older) was completed. Tropicamide 0.5% was used for iris dilation followed by an indirect ophthalmoscopy using a 20-D lens. Retinal images were later obtained using a smartphone attached to an adaptable camera device. Retinal images permitted the visualization of the macular and papillary regions and were sent without compression via the internet to a retinal specialist for interpretation. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for all cases and stages of DR. RESULTS: Using our standard examination method, the prevalence of DR and macular edema were 13.6% and 6.4%, respectively. With the smartphone-based retinal camera, the prevalence of DR and macular edema were 18.2% and 8.2%, respectively. Sensitivity and specificity for the detection of all stages of DR was 73.3% and 90.5%, respectively. For the detection of macular edema, sensitivity was 77.8%, and specificity was 95%. For severe nonproliferative DR (NPDR), sensitivity and specificity were 80% and 99%, respectively; for proliferative DR (PDR), they were both 100%. In the early stages of DR, specificity was 89.8% for mild NPDR and 97.1% for moderate NPDR. Sensitivity was 57.1% and 42.9%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Screening for DR using a smartphone-based retinal camera has a satisfactory specificity at all DR stages. Its sensitivity seems to be high only in the stages of DR necessitating a specific therapeutic decision (eg, macular edema, severe NPDR, and PDR). A smartphone-based retinal camera may be a useful device to screen for DR in resource-limited settings. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina. 2019;50:S18-S22.]. Copyright 2019, SLACK Incorporated.
Authors: Linus G Jansen; Thomas Schultz; Frank G Holz; Robert P Finger; Maximilian W M Wintergerst Journal: Ophthalmologe Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 1.059
Authors: Yong Seok Han; Mythili Pathipati; Carolyn Pan; Loh-Shan Leung; Mark Scott Blumenkranz; David Myung; Brian Chiwing Toy Journal: J Vitreoretin Dis Date: 2020-10-05
Authors: Kim Ramasamy; Chitaranjan Mishra; Naresh B Kannan; P Namperumalsamy; Sagnik Sen Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-11 Impact factor: 1.848
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