Search

Background/aimsTo 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.MethodsProspective, 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.ResultsImages 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.ConclusionWhen 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.

Introduction: Handheld retinal imaging cameras are relatively inexpensive and highly portable devices that have the potential to significantly expand diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening, allowing a much broader population to be evaluated. However, it is essential to evaluate if these devices can accurately identify vision-threatening macular diseases if DR screening programs will rely on these instruments. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the detection of diabetic macular pathology using monoscopic macula centered images using mydriatic handheld retinal imaging compared with spectral domain optical coherence tomography (SDOCT). Methods: Mydriatic 40°-60° macula centered images taken with 3 handheld retinal imaging devices [Aurora (AU), Smartscope (SS), Retinavue 700 (RV)] were compared with the Cirrus 6000 SDOCT taken during the same visit. Images were evaluated for presence of diabetic macular edema (DME) on monoscopic fundus photographs adapted from Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) definitions [no DME, noncenter-involved DME (non-ciDME) and center-involved DME (ciDME)]. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were calculated for each device with SDOCT as gold standard. Results: Severity by ETDRS photos: No DR 33.3%, mild NPDR 20.4%, moderate 14.2%, severe 11.6%, proliferative 20.4%, ungradable for DR 0%; no DME 83.1%, non-ciDME 4.9%, ciDME 12.0%, ungradable for DME 0%. Gradable images by SDOCT (N=217, 96.4%) showed no DME in 75.6%, non-ciDME in 9.8%, ciDME in 11.1%. Ungradable rate for images (poor visualization in >50% of the macula), was AU:0.9%, SS:4.4%, RV:6.2%. For DME, sensitivity and specificity was similar across devices (0.5 – 0.64, 0.93 – 0.97). For nondiabetic macular pathology (ERM, pigment epithelial detachment, traction retinal detachment) across all devices, sensitivity was low to moderate (0.2 – 0.5) but highly specific (0.93 – 1.00). Conclusions: Compared to SDOCT, handheld macular imaging attained high specificity but low sensitivity in identifying macular pathology. This suggests the importance of SDOCT evaluation for patients suspected to have DME on fundus photography, leading to more appropriate referral refinement.

To compare nonmydriatic (NM) and mydriatic (MD) handheld retinal imaging with standard ETDRS 7-field color fundus photography (ETDRS photographs) for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME).Prospective, comparative, instrument validation study.A total of 225 eyes from 116 patients with diabetes mellitus.Following a standardized protocol, NM and MD images were acquired using handheld retinal cameras (NM images: Aurora, Smartscope, and RetinaVue-700; MD images: Aurora, Smartscope, RetinaVue-700, and iNview) and dilated ETDRS photographs. Grading was performed at a centralized reading center using the International Clinical Classification for DR and DME. Kappa statistics (simple [K], weighted [Kw]) assessed the level of agreement for DR and DME. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for any DR, referable DR (refDR), and vision-threatening DR (vtDR).Agreement for DR and DME; sensitivity and specificity for any DR, refDR, and vtDR; ungradable rates.Severity by ETDRS photographs: no DR, 33.3%; mild nonproliferative DR, 20.4%; moderate DR, 14.2%; severe DR, 11.6%; proliferative DR, 20.4%; no DME, 68.0%; DME, 9.3%; non-center involving clinically significant DME, 4.9%; center-involving clinically significant DME, 12.4%; and ungradable, 5.3%. For NM handheld retinal imaging, Kw was 0.70 to 0.73 for DR and 0.76 to 0.83 for DME. For MD handheld retinal imaging, Kw was 0.68 to 0.75 for DR and 0.77 to 0.91 for DME. Thresholds for sensitivity (0.80) and specificity (0.95) were met by NM images acquired using Smartscope and MD images acquired using Aurora and RetinaVue-700 cameras for any DR and by MD images acquired using Aurora and RetinaVue-700 cameras for refDR. Thresholds for sensitivity and specificity were met by MD images acquired using Aurora and RetinaVue-700 for DME. Nonmydriatic and MD ungradable rates for DR were 15.1% to 38.3% and 0% to 33.8%, respectively.Following standardized protocols, NM and MD handheld retinal imaging devices have substantial agreement levels for DR and DME. With mydriasis, not all handheld retinal imaging devices meet standards for sensitivity and specificity in identifying any DR and refDR. None of the handheld devices met the established 95% specificity for vtDR, suggesting that lower referral thresholds should be used if handheld devices must be utilized. When using handheld devices, the ungradable rate is significantly reduced with mydriasis and DME sensitivity thresholds are only achieved following dilation.