Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 1436
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 68  |  Issue : 13  |  Page : 42-46

Accuracy of the smartphone-based nonmydriatic retinal camera in the detection of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy


1 Madras Diabetes Research Foundation and Dr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialties Centre, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Vijayaraghavan Prathiba
Dr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre and Madras Diabetes Research Foundation, 6, Conran Smith Road, Gopalapuram, Chennai - 600 086, Tamil Nadu
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_1937_19

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of smartphone-based nonmydriatic (NM) retinal camera in the detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and sight-threatening DR (STDR) in a tertiary eye care facility. Methods: Patients with diabetes underwent retinal photography with a smartphone-based NM fundus camera before mydriasis and standard 7-field fundus photography with a desktop mydriatic fundus camera after mydriasis. DR was graded using the international clinical classification of diabetic retinopathy system by two retinal expert ophthalmologists masked to each other and to the patient's identity. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) to detect DR and STDR by NM retinal imaging were assessed. Results: 245 people had gradable images in one or both eyes. DR and STDR were detected in 45.3% and 24.5%, respectively using NM camera, and in 57.6% and 28.6%, respectively using mydriatic camera. The sensitivity and specificity to detect any DR by NM camera was 75.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 68.1–82.3) and 95.2% (95%CI 91.1–99.3). For STDR the values were 82.9% (95% CI 74.0–91.7) and 98.9% (95% CI 97.3–100), respectively. The PPV to detect any DR was 95.5% (95% CI 89.8–98.5) and NPV was 73.9% (95% CI 66.4–81.3); PPV for STDR detection was 96.7% (95% CI 92.1–100)) and NPV was 93.5% (95% CI 90.0–97.1). Conclusion: Smartphone-based NM retinal camera had fairly high sensitivity and specificity for detection of DR and STDR in this clinic-based study. Further studies are warranted in other settings.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed606    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded130    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal