Validation of a portable, non-mydriatic fundus camera compared to gold standard dilated fundus examination using slit lamp biomicroscopy for assessing the optic disc for glaucoma

被引:12
|
作者
Upadhyaya, Swati [1 ,2 ]
Agarwal, Anushri [1 ,2 ]
Rengaraj, Venkatesh [1 ,2 ]
Srinivasan, Kavitha [1 ,2 ]
Newman Casey, Paula Anne [3 ]
Schehlein, Emily [3 ]
机构
[1] Aravind Eye Hosp, Pondicherry, India
[2] Post Grad Inst Ophthalmol, Pondicherry, India
[3] Univ Michigan, Kellogg Eye Ctr, Ann Arbor, MI 48109 USA
关键词
COST-EFFECTIVENESS; PREDICTORS; PEOPLE; INDIA;
D O I
10.1038/s41433-021-01485-2
中图分类号
R77 [眼科学];
学科分类号
100212 ;
摘要
Purpose To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a portable non-mydriatic fundus camera to assess the optic disc for glaucoma. Methods We conducted a single-site, cross-sectional, observational, instrument validation study. Non-mydriatic fundus photographs centred at the optic disc were obtained from 276 eyes of 68 glaucoma and 70 normal patients, using a portable fundus camera (Smartscope, Optomed, Oulu, Finland). A senior Glaucoma consultant, masked to the patient's study participation, performed a gold standard dilated fundus examination to make the diagnosis of glaucoma. Following this, a mydriatic photograph was taken by a standard table-top fundus camera. All the images were digitalized and de-identified by an independent investigator and presented to two remote graders, masked to the patients, their diagnoses, and photographic modality. Based on individual disc characteristics, a diagnosis of screening positive or negative for glaucoma was made. In the end, the independent investigator re-identified the images. Sensitivity and specificity to detect glaucoma with the undilated Smartscope camera was calculated compared to dilated fundus examination. Results Grading remote images taken with the portable non-mydriatic fundus camera showed a sensitivity of 96.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 91.6-98.8%) and 94.8% (95% CI: 89.7-97.9%) and a specificity of 98.5% (95% CI: 94.9-99.8%) and 97.8% (95% CI: 93.9-99.6%) for the two graders respectively as compared to gold standard dilated fundus examination. Conclusion The non-mydriatic Smartscope fundus images have high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing glaucoma remotely and thus may be an effective tool for use in community outreach programs.
引用
收藏
页码:441 / 447
页数:7
相关论文
共 5 条
  • [1] Validation of a portable, non-mydriatic fundus camera compared to gold standard dilated fundus examination using slit lamp biomicroscopy for assessing the optic disc for glaucoma
    Swati Upadhyaya
    Anushri Agarwal
    Venkatesh Rengaraj
    Kavitha Srinivasan
    Paula Anne Newman Casey
    Emily Schehlein
    Eye, 2022, 36 : 441 - 447
  • [2] Glaucoma Screening in Nepal: Cup-to-Disc Estimate With Standard Mydriatic Fundus Camera Compared to Portable Nonmydriatic Camera
    Miller, Sarah E.
    Thapa, Suman
    Robin, Alan L.
    Niziol, Leslie M.
    Ramulu, Pradeep Y.
    Woodward, Maria A.
    Paudyal, Indira
    Pitha, Ian
    Kim, Tyson N.
    Newman-Casey, Paula Anne
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2017, 182 : 99 - 106
  • [3] Significance of the disc damage likelihood scale objectively measured by a non-mydriatic fundus camera in preperimetric glaucoma
    Pahlitzsch, Milena
    Torun, Necip
    Erb, Carl
    Bruenner, Jeanette
    Maier, Anna Karina B.
    Gonnermann, Johannes
    Bertelmann, Eckart
    Klamann, Matthias K. J.
    CLINICAL OPHTHALMOLOGY, 2015, 9 : 2147 - 2158
  • [4] Using A Portable, Non-Invasive, Non-Mydriatic Fundus Imaging Camera On Two Wheeler- A cost-effective screening model in Urban Slums of Mumbai
    Natarajan, Sundaram
    Krishnan, Radhika
    Sonawane, Manish
    INVESTIGATIVE OPHTHALMOLOGY & VISUAL SCIENCE, 2017, 58 (08)
  • [5] Stereometric parameters of the optic disc. Comparison between a simultaneous non-mydriatic stereoscopic fundus camera (KOWA WX 3D) and the Heidelberg scanning laser ophthalmoscope (HRT IIII)
    Januschowski, K.
    Blumenstock, G.
    Rayford, C. E., II
    Bartz-Schmidt, K. -U.
    Schiefer, U.
    Ziemssen, F.
    OPHTHALMOLOGE, 2011, 108 (10): : 957 - 962