Login to MyKarger

New to MyKarger? Click here to sign up.



Login with Facebook

Forgot your password?

Authors, Editors, Reviewers

For Manuscript Submission, Check or Review Login please go to Submission Websites List.

Submission Websites List

Institutional Login
(Shibboleth or Open Athens)

For the academic login, please select your country in the dropdown list. You will be redirected to verify your credentials.

Original Paper

Predictors of Photographic Quality with a Handheld Nonmydriatic Fundus Camera Used for Screening of Vision-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy

Davila J.R.a · Sengupta S.S.c · Niziol L.M.a · Sindal M.D.c · Besirli C.G.a · Upadhyaya S.c · Woodward M.A.a · Venkatesh R.c · Robin A.L.a, b · Grubbs Jr. J.a · Newman-Casey P.A.a

Author affiliations

aDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, and bDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA; cAravind Eye Hospital and Postgraduate Institute of Ophthalmology, Pondicherry, India

Related Articles for ""

Ophthalmologica 2017;238:89-99

Do you have an account?

Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



Login Information





Contact Information












By signing up for MyKarger you will automatically participate in our year-End raffle.
If you Then Do Not wish To participate, please uncheck the following box.

Yes, I wish To participate In the year-End raffle And Get the chance To win some Of our most interesting books, And other attractive prizes.


I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.



To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

CHF 38.00 *
EUR 35.00 *
USD 39.00 *

Select

KAB

Buy a Karger Article Bundle (KAB) and profit from a discount!

If you would like to redeem your KAB credit, please log in.


Save over 20% compared to the individual article price.
Learn more

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restrictions apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00


Select

Subscribe

  • Access to all articles of the subscribed year(s) guaranteed for 5 years
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select

* The final prices may differ from the prices shown due to specifics of VAT rules.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: November 21, 2016
Accepted: April 10, 2017
Published online: July 05, 2017
Issue release date: August 2017

Number of Print Pages: 11
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0030-3755 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0267 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/OPH

Abstract

Purpose: To analyze predictors of image quality for a handheld nonmydriatic fundus camera used for screening of vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Methods: An ophthalmic photographer at an Aravind Eye Hospital obtained nonmydriatic and mydriatic fundus images from 3 fields in 275 eyes of 155 participants over 13 months using a Smartscope camera (Optomed, Oulu, Finland) and a Topcon tabletop fundus camera (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan). Two fellowship-trained retina specialists graded the images. Repeated-measures logistic regression assessed predictors of the main outcome measure: gradability of the fundus images. Results: Of 2,475 images, 76.2% of the Smartscope nonmydriatic images, 90.1% of the Smartscope mydriatic images, and 92.0% of the Topcon mydriatic images were gradable. Eyes with vitreous hemorrhage (OR = 0.24, p < 0.0001) or advanced cataract (OR = 0.08, p < 0.0001) had decreased odds of image gradability. Excluding eyes with cataract or vitreous hemorrhage, nonmydriatic macular image gradability improved from 68.4% in the first set of 55 eyes to 94.6% in the final set of 55 eyes. Conclusion: With sufficient training, paraprofessional health care staff can obtain high-quality images with a portable nonmydriatic fundus camera, particularly in patients with clear lenses and clear ocular media.

© 2017 S. Karger AG, Basel


References

  1. Wild S, Roglic G, Green A, Sicree R, King H: Global prevalence of diabetes: estimates for the year 2000 and projections for 2030. Diabetes Care 2004;27:1047-1053.
  2. Yau JW, Rogers SL, Kawasaki R, Lamoureux EL, Kowalski JW, Bek T, Chen SJ, Dekker JM, Fletcher A, Grauslund J, Haffner S, Hamman RF, Ikram MK, Kayama T, Klein BE, Klein R, Krishnaiah S, Mayurasakorn K, O'Hare JP, Orchard TJ, Porta M, Rema M, Roy MS, Sharma T, Shaw J, Taylor H, Tielsch JM, Varma R, Wang JJ, Wang N, West S, Xu L, Yasuda M, Zhang X, Mitchell P, Wong TY; Meta-Analysis for Eye Disease (META-EYE) Study Group: Global prevalence and major risk factors of diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care 2012;35:556-564.
  3. Photocoagulation treatment of proliferative diabetic retinopathy. Clinical application of Diabetic Retinopathy Study (DRS) findings, DRS Report Number 8. The Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology 1981;88:583-600.
  4. Early photocoagulation for diabetic retinopathy. ETDRS report number 9. Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Ophthalmology 1991;98(suppl): 766-785.
  5. Brechner RJ, Cowie CC, Howie LJ, Herman WH, Will JC, Harris MI: Ophthalmic examination among adults with diagnosed diabetes mellitus. JAMA 1993;270:1714-1718.
  6. Lee DJ, Kumar N, Feuer WJ, Chou CF, Rosa PR, Schiffman JC, Morante A, Aldahan A, Staropoli P, Fernandez CA, Tannenbaum SL, Lam BL: Dilated eye examination screening guideline compliance among patients with diabetes without a diabetic retinopathy diagnosis: the role of geographic access. BMJ Open Diabetes Res Care 2014;2: e000031.
  7. Lee PP, Feldman ZW, Ostermann J, Brown DS, Sloan FA: Longitudinal rates of annual eye examinations of persons with diabetes and chronic eye diseases. Ophthalmology 2003;110:1952-1959.
  8. Taylor CR, Merin LM, Salunga AM, Hepworth JT, Crutcher TD, O'Day DM, Pilon BA: Improving diabetic retinopathy screening ratios using telemedicine-based digital retinal imaging technology: the Vine Hill study. Diabetes Care 2007;30:574-578.
  9. Murchison AP, Friedman DS, Gower EW, Haller JA, Lam BL, Lee DJ, McGwin G Jr, Owsley C, Saaddine J; Insight Study Group: A multi-center diabetes eye screening study in community settings: study design and methodology. Ophthalmic Epidemiol 2016;23:109-115.
  10. Toy BC, Aguinaldo T, Eliason J, Egbert J: Non-mydriatic fundus camera screening for referral-warranted diabetic retinopathy in a Northern California safety-net setting. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2016;47:636-642.
  11. Rodríguez Villa S, Alonso Álvarez C, de Dios Del Valle R, Salazar Méndez R, Cuesta García M, Ruiz García MJ, Cubillas Martín M, Rodríguez Vazquez M: Five-year experience of tele-ophthalmology for diabetic retinopathy screening in a rural population (in English, Spanish). Arch Soc Esp Oftalmol 2016;91:426-430.
  12. Aptel F, Denis P, Rouberol F, Thivolet C: Screening of diabetic retinopathy: effect of field number and mydriasis on sensitivity and specificity of digital fundus photography. Diabetes Metab 2008;34:290-293.
  13. Moss SE, Meuer SM, Klein R, Hubbard LD, Brothers RJ, Klein BE: Are seven standard photographic fields necessary for classification of diabetic retinopathy? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1989;30:823-828.
  14. NHS NDEPS Core Team: Guidance on standard feature based grading forms to be used in the NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. Diabetic Eye Screening: Feature Based Grading Forms, version 1.4, 2012.
  15. Taylor D: To provide guidance on revised grading definitions for the NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. Diabetic Eye Screening: Revised Grading Definitions, version 1.3, 2012.
  16. Kempen JH, O'Colmain BJ, Leske MC, Haffner SM, Klein R, Moss SE, Taylor HR, Hamman RF; Eye Diseases Prevalence Research Group: The prevalence of diabetic retinopathy among adults in the United States. Arch Ophthalmol 2004;122:552-563.
  17. Chylack LT Jr, Wolfe JK, Singer DM, Leske MC, Bullimore MA, Bailey IL, Friend J, McCarthy D, Wu SY: The Lens Opacities Classification System III. The Longitudinal Study of Cataract Study Group. Arch Ophthalmol 1993;111:831-836.
  18. Facey K, Cummins E, Macpherson K, Morris A, Reay L, Slattery J: Health Technology Assessment Report 1. Organisation of Services for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening. Glasgow, Health Technology Board for Scotland, 2002.
  19. NHS DESP Core Team: Outlines pathway and business rules for image capture exceptions and ungradable images. Diabetic eye screening: pathway for images and where images cannot be taken, version 1.4, 2013.
  20. Zeger SL, Liang KY, Albert PS: Models for longitudinal data: a generalized estimating equation approach. Biometrics 1988;44:1049-1060.
  21. Jacoby WG: LOESS: a nonparametric, graphical tool for depicting relationships between variables. Elect Stud 2000;19:577-613.
  22. Wickham H: ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. New York, Springer, 2009.
  23. Cavallerano J, Aiello LM: Emerging trends in ocular telemedicine: the diabetic retinopathy model. J Telemed Telecare 2005;11:163-166.
  24. Zimmer-Galler IE, Kimura AE, Gupta S: Diabetic retinopathy screening and the use of telemedicine. Curr Opin Ophthalmol 2015;26:167-172.
  25. Lin S, Ramulu P, Lamoureux EL, Sabanayagam C: Addressing risk factors, screening, and preventative treatment for diabetic retinopathy in developing countries: a review. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2016;44:300-320.
  26. Mansberger SL, Sheppler C, Barker G, Gardiner SK, Demirel S, Wooten K, Becker TM: Long-term comparative effectiveness of telemedicine in providing diabetic retinopathy screening examinations: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Ophthalmol 2015;133:518-525.
  27. Liew G, Michaelides M, Bunce C: A comparison of the causes of blindness certifications in England and Wales in working age adults (16-64 years), 1999-2000 with 2009-2010. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004015.
  28. Salti HI, Nasrallah M, Haddad S, Khairallah W, Salti IS: Enhancing nonmydriatic color photographs of the retina with monochromatic views and a stereo pair to detect diabetic retinopathy. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging 2009;40:373-378.
  29. Gupta V, Bansal R, Gupta A, Bhansali A: Sensitivity and specificity of nonmydriatic digital imaging in screening diabetic retinopathy in Indian eyes. Indian J Ophthalmol 2014;62:851-856.
  30. Herbert HM, Jordan K, Flanagan DW: Is screening with digital imaging using one retinal view adequate? Eye (Lond) 2003;17:497-500.
  31. Lin DY, Blumenkranz MS, Brothers RJ, Grosvenor DM: The sensitivity and specificity of single-field nonmydriatic monochromatic digital fundus photography with remote image interpretation for diabetic retinopathy screening: a comparison with ophthalmoscopy and standardized mydriatic color photography. Am J Ophthalmol 2002;134:204-213.
  32. Boucher MC, Gresset JA, Angioi K, Olivier S: Effectiveness and safety of screening for diabetic retinopathy with two nonmydriatic digital images compared with the seven standard stereoscopic photographic fields. Can J Ophthalmol 2003;38:557-568.
  33. Perrier M, Boucher MC, Angioi K, Gresset JA, Olivier S: Comparison of two, three and four 45 degrees image fields obtained with the Topcon CRW6 nonmydriatic camera for screening for diabetic retinopathy. Can J Ophthalmol 2003;38:569-574.
  34. Ruamviboonsuk P, Wongcumchang N, Surawongsin P, Panyawatananukul E, Tiensuwan M: Screening for diabetic retinopathy in rural area using single-field, digital fundus images. J Med Assoc Thai 2005;88:176-180.
  35. Anterdtham J, Singalavanija A, Namatra C, Trinavarat A, Rodanant N, Bamroongsuk P, Thoongsuwan S, Euasobhon W: Nonmydriatic digital retinal images for determining diabetic retinopathy. J Med Assoc Thai 2007;90:508-512.
  36. Vujosevic S, Benetti E, Massignan F, Pilotto E, Varano M, Cavarzeran F, Avogaro A, Midena E: Screening for diabetic retinopathy: 1 and 3 nonmydriatic 45-degree digital fundus photographs vs 7 standard Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study fields. Am J Ophthalmol 2009;148:111-118.
  37. Scanlon PH, Malhotra R, Thomas G, Foy C, Kirkpatrick JN, Lewis-Barned N, Harney B, Aldington SJ: The effectiveness of screening for diabetic retinopathy by digital imaging photography and technician ophthalmoscopy. Diabet Med 2003;20:467-474.
  38. Murgatroyd H, Cox A, Ellingford A, Ellis JD, Macewen CJ, Leese GP: Can we predict which patients are at risk of having an ungradeable digital image for screening for diabetic retinopathy? Eye (Lond) 2008;22:344-348.
  39. Silva PS, Horton MB, Clary D, Lewis DG, Sun JK, Cavallerano JD, Aiello LP: Identification of diabetic retinopathy and ungradable image rate with ultrawide field imaging in a national teleophthalmology program. Ophthalmology 2016;123:1360-1367.
  40. Chow SP, Aiello LM, Cavallerano JD, Katalinic P, Hock K, Tolson A, Kirby R, Bursell SE, Aiello LP: Comparison of nonmydriatic digital retinal imaging versus dilated ophthalmic examination for nondiabetic eye disease in persons with diabetes. Ophthalmology 2006;113:833-840.
  41. Russo A, Morescalchi F, Costagliola C, Delcassi L, Semeraro F: Comparison of smartphone ophthalmoscopy with slit-lamp biomicroscopy for grading diabetic retinopathy. Am J Ophthalmol 2015;159:360-364.e1.
  42. Ryan ME, Rajalakshmi R, Prathiba V, Anjana RM, Ranjani H, Narayan KM, Olsen TW, Mohan V, Ward LA, Lynn MJ, Hendrick AM: Comparison among Methods of Retinopathy Assessment (CAMRA) study: smartphone, nonmydriatic, and mydriatic photography. Ophthalmology 2015;122:2038-2043.
  43. Bastawrous A, Giardini ME, Bolster NM, Peto T, Shah N, Livingstone IA, Weiss HA, Hu S, Rono H, Kuper H, Burton M: Clinical validation of a smartphone-based adapter for optic disc imaging in Kenya. JAMA Ophthalmol 2016;134:151-158.
  44. Shah JM, Leo SW, Pan JC, Yong VK, Wong EP, Lim TH, Teoh SC: Telemedicine screening for cytomegalovirus retinitis using digital fundus photography. Telemed J E Health 2013;19:627-631.
  45. Waisbourd M, Bond EA, Sullivan T, Hu WD, Shah SB, Molineaux J, Sembhi H, Spaeth GL, Myers JS, Hark LA, Katz LJ: Evaluation of nonmydriatic hand-held optic disc photography grading in the Philadelphia Glaucoma Detection and Treatment Project. J Glaucoma 2016;25:e520-e525.

Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Original Paper

Received: November 21, 2016
Accepted: April 10, 2017
Published online: July 05, 2017
Issue release date: August 2017

Number of Print Pages: 11
Number of Figures: 2
Number of Tables: 3

ISSN: 0030-3755 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0267 (Online)

For additional information: https://www.karger.com/OPH


Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.