One-field, two-field and five-field handheld retinal imaging compared with standard seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study photography for diabetic retinopathy screening

2Citations
Citations of this article
7Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background/aims To determine agreement of one-field (1F, macula-centred), two-field (2F, disc-macula) and five-field (5F, macula, disc, superior, inferior and nasal) mydriatic handheld retinal imaging protocols for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) as compared with standard seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) photography. Methods Prospective, comparative instrument validation study. Mydriatic retinal images were taken using three handheld retinal cameras: Aurora (AU; 50° field of view (FOV), 5F), Smartscope (SS; 40° FOV, 5F), and RetinaVue (RV; 60° FOV, 2F) followed by ETDRS photography. Images were evaluated at a centralised reading centre using the international DR classification. Each field protocol (1F, 2F and 5F) was graded independently by masked graders. Weighted kappa (Kw) statistics assessed agreement for DR. Sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) for referable diabetic retinopathy (refDR; moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) or worse, or ungradable images) were calculated. Results Images from 225 eyes of 116 patients with diabetes were evaluated. Severity by ETDRS photography: no DR, 33.3%; mild NPDR, 20.4%; moderate, 14.2%; severe, 11.6%; proliferative, 20.4%. Ungradable rate for DR: ETDRS, 0%; AU: 1F 2.23%, 2F 1.79%, 5F 0%; SS: 1F 7.6%, 2F 4.0%, 5F 3.6%; RV: 1F 6.7%, 2F 5.8%. Agreement rates of DR grading between handheld retinal imaging and ETDRS photography were (Kw, SN/SP refDR) AU: 1F 0.54, 0.72/0.92; 2F 0.59, 0.74/0.92; 5F 0.75, 0.86/0.97; SS: 1F 0.51, 0.72/0.92; 2F 0.60, 0.75/0.92; 5F 0.73, 0.88/0.92; RV: 1F 0.77, 0.91/0.95; 2F 0.75, 0.87/0.95. Conclusion When using handheld devices, the addition of peripheral fields decreased the ungradable rate and increased SN and SP for refDR. These data suggest the benefit of additional peripheral fields in DR screening programmes that use handheld retinal imaging.

References Powered by Scopus

Screening for diabetic retinopathy: new perspectives and challenges

408Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Single-field fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy screening: A report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology

244Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Stereo nonmydriatic digital-video color retinal imaging compared with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study seven standard field 35-mm stereo color photos for determining level of diabetic retinopathy

237Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Addressing Technical Failures in a Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program

4Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Current research and future strategies for the management of vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Salongcay, R. P., Jacoba, C. M. P., Salva, C. M. G., Rageh, A., Aquino, L. A. C., Saunar, A. V., … Silva, P. S. (2024). One-field, two-field and five-field handheld retinal imaging compared with standard seven-field Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study photography for diabetic retinopathy screening. British Journal of Ophthalmology, 108(5), 735–741. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2022-321849

Readers over time

‘23‘2401234

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

Lecturer / Post doc 1

100%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 1

100%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0