Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Recivall P Salongcay
Cris Martin P Jacoba
Claude Michael G Salva
Abdulrahman Rageh
Lizzie Anne C Aquino
Aileen V Saunar
Glenn P Alog
Mohamed Ashraf
Tunde Peto
Paolo S Silva
Source :
Salongcay, R P, Jacoba, C M P, Salva, C M G, Rageh, A, Aquino, L A C, Saunar, A V, Alog, G P, Ashraf, M, Peto, T & Silva, P S 2023, ' 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 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2022-321849
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

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.

Details

Language :
English
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
Salongcay, R P, Jacoba, C M P, Salva, C M G, Rageh, A, Aquino, L A C, Saunar, A V, Alog, G P, Ashraf, M, Peto, T & Silva, P S 2023, ' 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 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo-2022-321849
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....0b3ec725202aec28d2c5529f4ccfbcc1