Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

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

  • 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
  • *Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

48 Downloads (Pure)

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)735-741
Number of pages7
JournalBritish Journal of Ophthalmology
Volume108
Issue number5
Early online date24 Apr 2023
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 21 May 2024

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Retina
  • Imaging
  • Public health
  • Telemedicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this