Anna-Maria Kubin1,2,3, Joonas Wirkkala1,2,3, Antti Keskitalo2,3, Pasi Ohtonen3, Nina Hautala1,2,3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, PEDEGO Research Unit and Medical Research Center, Oulu University, Oulu, Finland. 2. Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland. 3. Division of Operative Care, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the performance and image quality of the handheld fundus camera to standard table-top fundus cameras in diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening. The reliability and diagnostic accuracy of DR grading performed by an ophthalmologist and a photographer reader were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 157 patients with diabetes, attending screening or follow-up of DR, were evaluated by fundus photographs taken in mydriasis by Optomed Aurora and Canon or Zeiss Visucam fundus cameras. The image quality and the severity of DR were evaluated independently by an ophthalmologist and experienced photographer. The sensitivity, specificity and reliability of the assessments were determined. RESULTS: 1884 fundus images from 314 eyes were analysed. In 53% of all eyes, DR was not present. 10% had mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), 16% moderate NPDR, 6% severe NPDR and 16% proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). The DR grading outcomes by Aurora highly equalled to those of Canon or Zeiss (κ = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.94), and there was almost perfect agreement in grading between the ophthalmologist and photographer (κ = 0.96, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). The image quality of Aurora was sufficient for reliable assessment according to both graders in 84-88% of the cases. CONCLUSION: The Optomed Aurora fundus camera seems appropriate for DR screening. The sufficient image quality and high diagnostic accuracy for DR grading are supportive for a less expensive and easily transportable screening system for DR. Immediate image grading carried out by a photographer would further improve and speed up the screening process in all settings.
PURPOSE: To compare the performance and image quality of the handheld fundus camera to standard table-top fundus cameras in diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening. The reliability and diagnostic accuracy of DR grading performed by an ophthalmologist and a photographer reader were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 157 patients with diabetes, attending screening or follow-up of DR, were evaluated by fundus photographs taken in mydriasis by Optomed Aurora and Canon or Zeiss Visucam fundus cameras. The image quality and the severity of DR were evaluated independently by an ophthalmologist and experienced photographer. The sensitivity, specificity and reliability of the assessments were determined. RESULTS: 1884 fundus images from 314 eyes were analysed. In 53% of all eyes, DR was not present. 10% had mild non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), 16% moderate NPDR, 6% severe NPDR and 16% proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR). The DR grading outcomes by Aurora highly equalled to those of Canon or Zeiss (κ = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.94), and there was almost perfect agreement in grading between the ophthalmologist and photographer (κ = 0.96, 95% CI 0.95 to 0.97). The image quality of Aurora was sufficient for reliable assessment according to both graders in 84-88% of the cases. CONCLUSION: The Optomed Aurora fundus camera seems appropriate for DR screening. The sufficient image quality and high diagnostic accuracy for DR grading are supportive for a less expensive and easily transportable screening system for DR. Immediate image grading carried out by a photographer would further improve and speed up the screening process in all settings.