TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of 1-field, 2-fields, and 3-fields fundus photography for detection and grading of diabetic retinopathy
AU - Lee, Jessica C.
AU - Nguyen, Lilian
AU - Hynan, Linda S.
AU - Blomquist, Preston H.
N1 - Funding Information:
Supported in part by an unrestricted research grant from Research to Prevent Blindness Inc., New York, New York, U.S.A. The sponsor or funding organization had no role in the design or conduct of this research.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2019/12
Y1 - 2019/12
N2 - Aim: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 1-, 2-, and 3-fields, nonmydriatic (NM), 45° color photography compared with mydriatic ophthalmoscopy for detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR). Methods: Masked, comparative case series was performed utilizing a group of 128 diabetic patients (256 eyes) with various stages of DR who underwent both 3-fields NM color photography and ophthalmologic examination. In a blinded manner, the same optometrist who read the original 3-fields images for a patient read the 1- and 2-fields photographs on separate dates later. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of digital retinal photography compared with dilated ophthalmoscopy were, respectively: 88% and 76% for 1-field; 94% and 69% for 2-fields; and 100% and 79% for 3-fields. The proportion of agreement between fundus photography reading and exam DR diagnosis were 58% for 1-field, 58% for 2-fields, and 77% for 3-fields. Kappa and Cramer's V statistics for 1-, 2-, and 3-fields were 0.55 and 0.60, 0.52 and 0.57, and 0.72 and 0.74, respectively. Three-fields measurement of DR was most similar to the dilated ophthalmological exam overall and across all DR severity levels. Conclusions: Compared to 1- and 2-fields fundus photography, 3-fields is superior for detecting vision-threatening DR. One- and 2-fields have reasonable sensitivity for DR screening.
AB - Aim: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of 1-, 2-, and 3-fields, nonmydriatic (NM), 45° color photography compared with mydriatic ophthalmoscopy for detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR). Methods: Masked, comparative case series was performed utilizing a group of 128 diabetic patients (256 eyes) with various stages of DR who underwent both 3-fields NM color photography and ophthalmologic examination. In a blinded manner, the same optometrist who read the original 3-fields images for a patient read the 1- and 2-fields photographs on separate dates later. Results: The sensitivity and specificity of digital retinal photography compared with dilated ophthalmoscopy were, respectively: 88% and 76% for 1-field; 94% and 69% for 2-fields; and 100% and 79% for 3-fields. The proportion of agreement between fundus photography reading and exam DR diagnosis were 58% for 1-field, 58% for 2-fields, and 77% for 3-fields. Kappa and Cramer's V statistics for 1-, 2-, and 3-fields were 0.55 and 0.60, 0.52 and 0.57, and 0.72 and 0.74, respectively. Three-fields measurement of DR was most similar to the dilated ophthalmological exam overall and across all DR severity levels. Conclusions: Compared to 1- and 2-fields fundus photography, 3-fields is superior for detecting vision-threatening DR. One- and 2-fields have reasonable sensitivity for DR screening.
KW - Diabetic retinopathy
KW - Fundus photography
KW - Screening
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85074470722&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85074470722&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2019.107441
DO - 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2019.107441
M3 - Article
C2 - 31668742
AN - SCOPUS:85074470722
SN - 1056-8727
VL - 33
JO - Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications
JF - Journal of Diabetes and Its Complications
IS - 12
M1 - 107441
ER -