July 2019
Volume 60, Issue 9
Open Access
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   July 2019
Smartphone-based fundus imaging in diabetic retinopathy screening in low- and middle-income countries: Evaluation of four different devices
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Maximilian W.M. Wintergerst
    University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  • Divyansh Mishra
    Sankara Eye Hospital Bangalore, Sankara Academy of Vision, Bangalore, India
  • Laura Hartmann
    University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  • Payal Shah
    Sankara Eye Hospital Bangalore, Sankara Academy of Vision, Bangalore, India
  • Vinay Kumar
    Sankara Eye Hospital Bangalore, Sankara Academy of Vision, Bangalore, India
  • Pradeep Sagar
    Sankara Eye Hospital Bangalore, Sankara Academy of Vision, Bangalore, India
  • Frank G. Holz
    University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  • Kaushik Murali
    Sankara Eye Hospital Bangalore, Sankara Academy of Vision, Bangalore, India
  • Mahesh Shanmugam Palanivelu
    Sankara Eye Hospital Bangalore, Sankara Academy of Vision, Bangalore, India
  • Robert P Finger
    University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships   Maximilian Wintergerst, CenterVue (F), DigiSight Technologies (F), Heidelberg Engineering (F), HEINE Optotechnik GmbH (F), Zeiss Meditec GmbH (F); Divyansh Mishra, None; Laura Hartmann, None; Payal Shah, None; Vinay Kumar, None; Pradeep Sagar, None; Frank Holz, Acucela (C), Acucela (F), Acucela (R), Allergan (F), Allergan (R), Appelis (C), Appelis (R), Bayer (C), Bayer (F), Bayer (R), Bioeq/Formycon (F), Bioeq/Formycon (C), Boehringer-Ingelheim (C), CenterVue (F), Ellex (R), Geuder (C), Grayburg Vision (C), Grayburg Vision (R), Heidelberg Engineering (C), Heidelberg Engineering (F), Heidelberg Engineering (R), LinBioscience (C), Roche/Genentech (C), Roche/Genentech (F), Roche/Genentech (R); Kaushik Murali, None; Mahesh Shanmugam Palanivelu, None; Robert Finger, None
  • Footnotes
    Support  None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science July 2019, Vol.60, 1542. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Maximilian W.M. Wintergerst, Divyansh Mishra, Laura Hartmann, Payal Shah, Vinay Kumar, Pradeep Sagar, Frank G. Holz, Kaushik Murali, Mahesh Shanmugam Palanivelu, Robert P Finger; Smartphone-based fundus imaging in diabetic retinopathy screening in low- and middle-income countries: Evaluation of four different devices. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2019;60(9):1542.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose : To compare three different devices for direct and one for indirect smartphone-based fundus imaging (SBFI) regarding image quality and sensitivity/specificity to detect diabetic retinopathy (DR) in a real-world setting in South-India.

Methods : 412 eyes from 206 patients with diabetes were clinically examined and imaged following a modified seven-fields-imaging protocol with SBFI in video mode using the direct SBFI devices Peek Retina (Peek Vision Ltd, UK), the D-Eye adapter (D-EYE S.r.l., Italy) and a do-it-yourself solution developed by the Sankara Eye Foundation, the indirect SBFI device Paxos Scope (Verana Health, USA) as well as conventional color-fundus-photography (CFP, 3nethra royal, Forus Health, India). Semi-quantitative scales for image quality regarding sharpness, reflex artifacts and illumination were developed. Image quality, examination time and sensitivity/specificity to detect severe DR (stage 3/4), any DR and macular involvement were compared between the devices and the gold standard (CFP).

Results : 1445 videos (35 hours of total video material) and 1800 single images were analyzed. The field-of-view was smaller in direct compared to indirect SBFI. There was no difference in sharpness between direct and indirect SBFI (p=0.46), reflex artifacts were less frequently observed in indirect compared to direct SBFI (p<0.001), and illumination was better in indirect SBFI (p<0.001). Examination took longer in indirect SBFI (77.8±40.0 vs. 111.6±62.1 seconds, p<0.001). Sensitivity/specificity to detect severe DR were 56%/100% for direct and 100%/99% for indirect devices, respectively. Sensitivity/specificity to detect any DR were 62.6%/93.9% for direct and 72.3%/100% for indirect devices. For detection of macular involvement sensitivity/specificity were 59%/94% for direct and 79%/100% for indirect devices.

Conclusions : There are significant differences between direct and indirect devices for SBFI in terms of image quality and sensitivity/specificity to detect DR. Smaller retinal hemorrhages and exudates are detectable more reliably in direct SBFI due to a higher magnification, however image quality, field-of-view and overall sensitivity/specificity are superior in indirect SBFI compared to gold standard CFP.

This abstract was presented at the 2019 ARVO Annual Meeting, held in Vancouver, Canada, April 28 - May 2, 2019.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×