Comparison of Handheld Retinal Imaging with ETDRS 7-Standard Field Photography for Diabetic Retinopathy and Diabetic Macular Edema

Ophthalmol Retina. 2022 Jul;6(7):548-556. doi: 10.1016/j.oret.2022.03.002. Epub 2022 Mar 9.

Abstract

Purpose: To compare nonmydriatic (NM) and mydriatic (MD) handheld retinal imaging with standard ETDRS 7-field color fundus photography (ETDRS photographs) for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME).

Design: Prospective, comparative, instrument validation study.

Subjects: A total of 225 eyes from 116 patients with diabetes mellitus.

Methods: Following a standardized protocol, NM and MD images were acquired using handheld retinal cameras (NM images: Aurora, Smartscope, and RetinaVue-700; MD images: Aurora, Smartscope, RetinaVue-700, and iNview) and dilated ETDRS photographs. Grading was performed at a centralized reading center using the International Clinical Classification for DR and DME. Kappa statistics (simple [K], weighted [Kw]) assessed the level of agreement for DR and DME. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for any DR, referable DR (refDR), and vision-threatening DR (vtDR).

Main outcome measures: Agreement for DR and DME; sensitivity and specificity for any DR, refDR, and vtDR; ungradable rates.

Results: Severity by ETDRS photographs: no DR, 33.3%; mild nonproliferative DR, 20.4%; moderate DR, 14.2%; severe DR, 11.6%; proliferative DR, 20.4%; no DME, 68.0%; DME, 9.3%; non-center involving clinically significant DME, 4.9%; center-involving clinically significant DME, 12.4%; and ungradable, 5.3%. For NM handheld retinal imaging, Kw was 0.70 to 0.73 for DR and 0.76 to 0.83 for DME. For MD handheld retinal imaging, Kw was 0.68 to 0.75 for DR and 0.77 to 0.91 for DME. Thresholds for sensitivity (0.80) and specificity (0.95) were met by NM images acquired using Smartscope and MD images acquired using Aurora and RetinaVue-700 cameras for any DR and by MD images acquired using Aurora and RetinaVue-700 cameras for refDR. Thresholds for sensitivity and specificity were met by MD images acquired using Aurora and RetinaVue-700 for DME. Nonmydriatic and MD ungradable rates for DR were 15.1% to 38.3% and 0% to 33.8%, respectively.

Conclusions: Following standardized protocols, NM and MD handheld retinal imaging devices have substantial agreement levels for DR and DME. With mydriasis, not all handheld retinal imaging devices meet standards for sensitivity and specificity in identifying any DR and refDR. None of the handheld devices met the established 95% specificity for vtDR, suggesting that lower referral thresholds should be used if handheld devices must be utilized. When using handheld devices, the ungradable rate is significantly reduced with mydriasis and DME sensitivity thresholds are only achieved following dilation.

Keywords: Diabetic retinopathy; Diabetic retinopathy screening; Handheld retinal imaging; Instrument validation; Mobile fundus camera; Teleophthalmology.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Diabetes Mellitus*
  • Diabetic Retinopathy* / diagnosis
  • Humans
  • Macular Edema* / diagnosis
  • Macular Edema* / etiology
  • Mydriasis*
  • Photography
  • Prospective Studies