Yong Seok Han1, Mythili Pathipati2,3, Carolyn Pan2,3, Loh-Shan Leung2,3, Mark Scott Blumenkranz2,3, David Myung2,3, Brian Chiwing Toy1,2,3. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Southern California Roski Eye Institute, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, Byers Eye Institute, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, CA, USA. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, San Jose, CA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare dilated smartphone-based imaging with a nonmydriatic, tabletop fundus camera as a teleophthalmology screening tool for diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS: This was a single-institutional, cross-sectional, comparative-instrument study. Fifty-six patients at a safety-net hospital underwent teleophthalmology screening for DR using standard, nonmydriatic fundus photography with a tabletop camera (Nidek NM-1000) and dilated fundus photography using a smartphone camera with lens adapter (Paxos Scope, Verana Health). Masked graders performed standardized photo grading. Quantitative comparisons were performed employing descriptive, κ, Bland-Altman, and receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Posterior segment photography was of sufficient quality to grade in 89% of mydriatic smartphone-imaged eyes and in 86% of nonmydriatic tabletop camera-imaged eyes (P = .03). Using the tabletop camera as the reference to detect moderate nonproliferative DR or worse (referral-warranted DR), mydriatic smartphone-acquired photographs were found to be 82% sensitive and 96% specific. Dilated smartphone imaging detected referral-warranted DR in 3 eyes whose tabletop camera imaging did not demonstrate referral-warranted DR. Secondary masked review of medical records for the discordances in referral-warranted status from the two imaging modalities was performed, and it revealed revised sensitivity and specificity values of 95% and 98%, respectively. Overall, there was good agreement between tabletop camera and smartphone-acquired photo grades (κ = 0.91 ± 0.1, P < .001; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.98-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Mydriatic smartphone-based imaging resulted in fewer ungradable photos compared to nonmydriatic table-top camera imaging and detected more patients with referral-warranted DR. Our study supports the use of mydriatic smartphone teleophthalmology as an alternative method to screen for DR.
PURPOSE: To compare dilated smartphone-based imaging with a nonmydriatic, tabletop fundus camera as a teleophthalmology screening tool for diabetic retinopathy (DR). METHODS: This was a single-institutional, cross-sectional, comparative-instrument study. Fifty-six patients at a safety-net hospital underwent teleophthalmology screening for DR using standard, nonmydriatic fundus photography with a tabletop camera (Nidek NM-1000) and dilated fundus photography using a smartphone camera with lens adapter (Paxos Scope, Verana Health). Masked graders performed standardized photo grading. Quantitative comparisons were performed employing descriptive, κ, Bland-Altman, and receiver operating characteristic analyses. RESULTS: Posterior segment photography was of sufficient quality to grade in 89% of mydriatic smartphone-imaged eyes and in 86% of nonmydriatic tabletop camera-imaged eyes (P = .03). Using the tabletop camera as the reference to detect moderate nonproliferative DR or worse (referral-warranted DR), mydriatic smartphone-acquired photographs were found to be 82% sensitive and 96% specific. Dilated smartphone imaging detected referral-warranted DR in 3 eyes whose tabletop camera imaging did not demonstrate referral-warranted DR. Secondary masked review of medical records for the discordances in referral-warranted status from the two imaging modalities was performed, and it revealed revised sensitivity and specificity values of 95% and 98%, respectively. Overall, there was good agreement between tabletop camera and smartphone-acquired photo grades (κ = 0.91 ± 0.1, P < .001; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.98-1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Mydriatic smartphone-based imaging resulted in fewer ungradable photos compared to nonmydriatic table-top camera imaging and detected more patients with referral-warranted DR. Our study supports the use of mydriatic smartphone teleophthalmology as an alternative method to screen for DR.
Authors: Martha E Ryan; Ramachandran Rajalakshmi; Vijayaraghavan Prathiba; Ranjit Mohan Anjana; Harish Ranjani; K M Venkat Narayan; Timothy W Olsen; Viswanathan Mohan; Laura A Ward; Michael J Lynn; Andrew M Hendrick Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2015-07-16 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: C P Wilkinson; Frederick L Ferris; Ronald E Klein; Paul P Lee; Carl David Agardh; Matthew Davis; Diana Dills; Anselm Kampik; R Pararajasegaram; Juan T Verdaguer Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: A Chabouis; M Berdugo; T Meas; A Erginay; M Laloi-Michelin; V Jouis; P-J Guillausseau; J M'bemba; G Chaine; G Slama; R Cohen; G Reach; M Marre; P Chanson; E Vicaut; P Massin Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 2009-04-05 Impact factor: 6.041