Jessica C Lee1, Lilian Nguyen2, Linda S Hynan3, Preston H Blomquist4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA. 3. Departments of Population and Data Sciences (Biostatistics), and Psychiatry, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA. Electronic address: preston.blomquist@utsouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 1-, 2-, and 3-fields, nonmydriatic (NM), 45° color photography compared with mydriatic ophthalmoscopy for detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS: Masked, comparative case series was performed utilizing a group of 128 diabetic patients (256 eyes) with various stages of DR who underwent both 3-fields NM color photography and ophthalmologic examination. In a blinded manner, the same optometrist who read the original 3-fields images for a patient read the 1- and 2-fields photographs on separate dates later. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of digital retinal photography compared with dilated ophthalmoscopy were, respectively: 88% and 76% for 1-field; 94% and 69% for 2-fields; and 100% and 79% for 3-fields. The proportion of agreement between fundus photography reading and exam DR diagnosis were 58% for 1-field, 58% for 2-fields, and 77% for 3-fields. Kappa and Cramer's V statistics for 1-, 2-, and 3-fields were 0.55 and 0.60, 0.52 and 0.57, and 0.72 and 0.74, respectively. Three-fields measurement of DR was most similar to the dilated ophthalmological exam overall and across all DR severity levels. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 1- and 2-fields fundus photography, 3-fields is superior for detecting vision-threatening DR. One- and 2-fields have reasonable sensitivity for DR screening.
AIM: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 1-, 2-, and 3-fields, nonmydriatic (NM), 45° color photography compared with mydriatic ophthalmoscopy for detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS: Masked, comparative case series was performed utilizing a group of 128 diabeticpatients (256 eyes) with various stages of DR who underwent both 3-fields NM color photography and ophthalmologic examination. In a blinded manner, the same optometrist who read the original 3-fields images for a patient read the 1- and 2-fields photographs on separate dates later. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of digital retinal photography compared with dilated ophthalmoscopy were, respectively: 88% and 76% for 1-field; 94% and 69% for 2-fields; and 100% and 79% for 3-fields. The proportion of agreement between fundus photography reading and exam DR diagnosis were 58% for 1-field, 58% for 2-fields, and 77% for 3-fields. Kappa and Cramer's V statistics for 1-, 2-, and 3-fields were 0.55 and 0.60, 0.52 and 0.57, and 0.72 and 0.74, respectively. Three-fields measurement of DR was most similar to the dilated ophthalmological exam overall and across all DR severity levels. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to 1- and 2-fields fundus photography, 3-fields is superior for detecting vision-threatening DR. One- and 2-fields have reasonable sensitivity for DR screening.
Authors: Pedro Romero-Aroca; Raquel Verges; Najlaa Maarof; Aida Vallas-Mateu; Alex Latorre; Antonio Moreno-Ribas; Ramon Sagarra-Alamo; Josep Basora-Gallisa; Julian Cristiano; Marc Baget-Bernaldiz Journal: BMJ Open Ophthalmol Date: 2022-03-28