Comparison of 2-field and 5-field mydriatic handheld retinal imaging in a community-based diabetic retinopathy screening program

Lizzie Anne Aquino, Recivall Salongcay, Claude Michael Salva, Glenn Paulo Alog, Kaye Locaylocay, Aileen Viguilla Saunar, Jennifer K. Sun, Lloyd P. Aiello, Tunde Peto, Paolo S. Silva

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting abstractpeer-review

Abstract

Purpose
To compare 2-field (2F) and 5-field (5F) mydriatic handheld retinal imaging for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in a community-based teleophthalmology DR screening program (DRSP)

Methods
Following a validated standard imaging protocol, 5F imaging [macula, disc, superior, inferior and temporal] was acquired using a handheld retinal camera (Aurora, Optomed plc) through dilated pupils. 2F (disc and macula) and 5F images were independently assessed by masked graders using the International DR classification at a centralized reading center. Simple (K) and weighted (Kw) kappa statistics were derived for DR/DME. Sensitivity and specificity for referable DR [refDR (moderate nonproliferative DR (NPDR) or worse or ungradable images] and vision threatening DR [(vtDR) severe NPDR or worse] for 2F compared to 5F imaging were calculated.

Results
Images of 805 eyes from 407 consecutive patients with diabetes from a community-based teleophthalmology DRSP were evaluated. Distribution of DR severity by 2F/5F images (%): no DR 66.0/61.7, mild NPDR 10.7/14.4, moderate NPDR 7.9/8.1, severe NPDR 3.3/5.6, PDR 5.6/4.6, ungradable 6.5/5.6. Table 1 presents the cross-tabulation of DR severity by 2F and 5F with ungradable eyes excluded from the analysis. Exact agreement of DR grading between 2F and 5F photos was 81.7%, within 1-step 97.1%, K 0.64, Kw 0.78. Sensitivity/specificity for 2F compared 5F was refDR 0.80/0.97, vtDR 0.73/0.98. Figure 1 presents a sample comparison of 2F and 5F images. The rate of ungradable images with 2F was 16.1% higher than with 5F (6.5% vs 5.6%).

Conclusions
Mydriatic 2F and 5F handheld imaging have substantial agreement for DR severity grading. Mydriatic 2F handheld imaging achieves the sensitivity and specificity thresholds (0.80/0.95) for refDR (0.80/0.97) but not for vtDR (0.73/0.98) suggesting that lower thresholds for referral must be used when using 2F handheld imaging in a community-based teleophthalmology DRSP. Without the addition of peripheral fields included in 5F handheld imaging, the sensitivity threshold when using vtDR for referrals will not be achieved and would limit its use in DRSP.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)3826
Number of pages1
JournalInvestigative Opthalmology and Visual Science
Volume63
Issue number7
Publication statusPublished - 01 Jun 2022
EventAssociation for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) 2022 - Denver, Colorado, USA, Denver, United States
Duration: 01 May 202204 May 2022

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of 2-field and 5-field mydriatic handheld retinal imaging in a community-based diabetic retinopathy screening program'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this