Param Bhatter1, Louie Cao1, Austin Crochetiere1, Sophia M Raefsky1,2, Laura R Cuevas1, Kaosoluchi Enendu1, Emily H Frisch1,2, Caleb Shumway1,3, Charlotte Gore4, Andrew W Browne2,4,5. 1. School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 2. Insitute of Clinical and Translational Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 3. John Moran Eye Center, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA. 4. Department of Ophthalmology, Gavin Herbert Eye Institute, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA. 5. Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Abstract
Background: Visual impairment, specifically anterior segment pathology, presents a significant burden of disease in the world. Introduction: Inexpensive tools are necessary to improve eye health of residents in developing countries where care is difficult to access. Our study aimed at determining whether a $5 macro lens attached to a smartphone camera is an effective anterior segment imaging method for screening diseases. Materials and Methods: Fifty four (n = 54) patients had anterior segment imaging performed by using an Easy Macro lens and an iPhone. Imaging was performed at the Floating Doctors' mobile clinic sites in Panama. Images were sent back and graded by two board-certified ophthalmologists using a modified version of the FOTO-ED scale. Statistical analysis was performed by using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare grades between the two imaging modalities. Results: There was no significant difference in overall clinical utility of images obtained by the iPhone versus Easy Macro lens. The iPhone was significantly superior in imaging of the lens and conjunctiva, whereas the Easy Macro lens was superior in regards to the anterior chamber, iris, and lens. Discussion: The imaging modality that best captures pathology is dependent on what part of the anterior segment is being examined. An imaging protocol with a pair of images, one from a smartphone and one from a macro lens, would have significant clinical utility. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates how minimally trained users can deliver effective eye screening via a telemedicine-based approach in a resource-deprived setting. Future directions would be to develop a telemedicine protocol and determine whether it improves clinically measurable outcomes in patients.
Background: Visual impairment, specifically anterior segment pathology, presents a significant burden of disease in the world. Introduction: Inexpensive tools are necessary to improve eye health of residents in developing countries where care is difficult to access. Our study aimed at determining whether a $5 macro lens attached to a smartphone camera is an effective anterior segment imaging method for screening diseases. Materials and Methods: Fifty four (n = 54) patients had anterior segment imaging performed by using an Easy Macro lens and an iPhone. Imaging was performed at the Floating Doctors' mobile clinic sites in Panama. Images were sent back and graded by two board-certified ophthalmologists using a modified version of the FOTO-ED scale. Statistical analysis was performed by using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test to compare grades between the two imaging modalities. Results: There was no significant difference in overall clinical utility of images obtained by the iPhone versus Easy Macro lens. The iPhone was significantly superior in imaging of the lens and conjunctiva, whereas the Easy Macro lens was superior in regards to the anterior chamber, iris, and lens. Discussion: The imaging modality that best captures pathology is dependent on what part of the anterior segment is being examined. An imaging protocol with a pair of images, one from a smartphone and one from a macro lens, would have significant clinical utility. Conclusion: Our study demonstrates how minimally trained users can deliver effective eye screening via a telemedicine-based approach in a resource-deprived setting. Future directions would be to develop a telemedicine protocol and determine whether it improves clinically measurable outcomes in patients.
Authors: Atsushi Kawaguchi; Noha Sharafeldin; Aishwarya Sundaram; Sandy Campbell; Matthew Tennant; Christopher Rudnisky; Ezekiel Weis; Karim F Damji Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-08-07 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Juan Carlos Silva; Oscar J Mújica; Enrique Vega; Alberto Barcelo; Van C Lansingh; Joan McLeod; Hans Limburg Journal: Rev Panam Salud Publica Date: 2015-01
Authors: Seth R Flaxman; Rupert R A Bourne; Serge Resnikoff; Peter Ackland; Tasanee Braithwaite; Maria V Cicinelli; Aditi Das; Jost B Jonas; Jill Keeffe; John H Kempen; Janet Leasher; Hans Limburg; Kovin Naidoo; Konrad Pesudovs; Alex Silvester; Gretchen A Stevens; Nina Tahhan; Tien Y Wong; Hugh R Taylor Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Alexander S Himstead; Janani Prasad; Sean Melucci; Kevin M Gustafson; Paul E Israelsen; Andrew Browne Journal: Int J Ophthalmol Date: 2022-06-18 Impact factor: 1.645