Diagnostic test accuracy of diabetic retinopathy screening by physician graders using a hand-held non-mydriatic retinal camera at a tertiary level medical clinic.
Diabetic Retinopathy
/ diagnosis
Equipment Design
Female
Humans
Image Processing, Computer-Assisted
/ methods
Male
Middle Aged
Mydriatics
Photography
/ instrumentation
Physicians
Prospective Studies
Reproducibility of Results
Retina
/ diagnostic imaging
Tertiary Care Centers
Vision Screening
/ instrumentation
Diabetes
Diabetic retinopathy
Diagnostic accuracy
Digital imaging
Screening
Journal
BMC ophthalmology
ISSN: 1471-2415
Titre abrégé: BMC Ophthalmol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967802
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Apr 2019
08 Apr 2019
Historique:
received:
22
11
2018
accepted:
26
03
2019
entrez:
10
4
2019
pubmed:
10
4
2019
medline:
11
4
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The evidence on diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening utilising photographic studies by non-ophthalmologist personnel in low and middle-income country (LMIC) settings is scarce. We aimed to assess DTA of DR screening using a nonmydriatic hand-held digital camera by trained general physicians in a non-ophthalmic setting. This study is a validation of a screening intervention. We selected 700 people with diabetes (PwDM) > 18 years of age, not previously screened or treated for DR, presenting at a tertiary medical clinic in Sri Lanka. Two-field retinal imaging was used to capture fundus images before and after pupil dilatation, using a hand-held non-mydriatic (Visuscout 100®-Germany) digital retinal camera. The images were captured and graded by two trained, masked independent physician graders. The DTA of different levels of DR was assessed comparing physician's grading with a retinologist's clinical examination by mydriatic bio-microscopy, according to a locally adopted guideline. Seven hundred eligible PwDM were screened by physician graders. The mean age of participants was 60.8 years (SD ±10.08) and mean duration of DM was 9.9 years (SD ±8.09). Ungradable image proportion in non-mydriatic imaging was 43.4% (either eye-31.3%, both eyes 12.1%). This decreased to 12.8% (either eye-11.6%, both eyes-1.2%) following pupil dilatation. In comparison to detection of any level of DR, a referable level DR (moderate non-proliferative DR and levels above) showed a higher level of DTA. The sensitivity of the defined referable DR was 88.7% (95% CI 81.7-93.8%) for grader 1 (positive predictive value [PPV] 59.1%) and 92.5% (95% CI 86.4-96.5%) for grader 2 (PPV 68%), using mydriatic imaging, after including ungradable images as screen positives. The specificity was 94.9% (95% CI 93.6-96.0%) for grader 1 (negative predictive value [NPV] 99%) and 96.4% (95% CI 95.3-97.3%) for grader 2 (NPV 99.4%). The Physicians grading of images from a digital hand-held non-mydriatic camera at a medical clinic, with dilatation of pupil of those who have ungradable images, provides a valid modality to identify referable level of DR. This could be a feasible alternative modality to the existing opportunistic screening to improve the access and coverage. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47559703 . Date of Registration 18th March 2019, Retrospectively registered.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The evidence on diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening utilising photographic studies by non-ophthalmologist personnel in low and middle-income country (LMIC) settings is scarce. We aimed to assess DTA of DR screening using a nonmydriatic hand-held digital camera by trained general physicians in a non-ophthalmic setting.
METHODS
METHODS
This study is a validation of a screening intervention. We selected 700 people with diabetes (PwDM) > 18 years of age, not previously screened or treated for DR, presenting at a tertiary medical clinic in Sri Lanka. Two-field retinal imaging was used to capture fundus images before and after pupil dilatation, using a hand-held non-mydriatic (Visuscout 100®-Germany) digital retinal camera. The images were captured and graded by two trained, masked independent physician graders. The DTA of different levels of DR was assessed comparing physician's grading with a retinologist's clinical examination by mydriatic bio-microscopy, according to a locally adopted guideline.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Seven hundred eligible PwDM were screened by physician graders. The mean age of participants was 60.8 years (SD ±10.08) and mean duration of DM was 9.9 years (SD ±8.09). Ungradable image proportion in non-mydriatic imaging was 43.4% (either eye-31.3%, both eyes 12.1%). This decreased to 12.8% (either eye-11.6%, both eyes-1.2%) following pupil dilatation. In comparison to detection of any level of DR, a referable level DR (moderate non-proliferative DR and levels above) showed a higher level of DTA. The sensitivity of the defined referable DR was 88.7% (95% CI 81.7-93.8%) for grader 1 (positive predictive value [PPV] 59.1%) and 92.5% (95% CI 86.4-96.5%) for grader 2 (PPV 68%), using mydriatic imaging, after including ungradable images as screen positives. The specificity was 94.9% (95% CI 93.6-96.0%) for grader 1 (negative predictive value [NPV] 99%) and 96.4% (95% CI 95.3-97.3%) for grader 2 (NPV 99.4%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The Physicians grading of images from a digital hand-held non-mydriatic camera at a medical clinic, with dilatation of pupil of those who have ungradable images, provides a valid modality to identify referable level of DR. This could be a feasible alternative modality to the existing opportunistic screening to improve the access and coverage.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN47559703 . Date of Registration 18th March 2019, Retrospectively registered.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30961576
doi: 10.1186/s12886-019-1092-3
pii: 10.1186/s12886-019-1092-3
pmc: PMC6454614
doi:
Substances chimiques
Mydriatics
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
89Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust, coordinated through the Commonwealth Eye Health Consortium - United Kingdom.
ID : ITRCRZC6812
Références
Can J Ophthalmol. 2003 Dec;38(7):569-74
pubmed: 14740798
Transl Vis Sci Technol. 2016 Apr 20;5(2):16
pubmed: 27134775
Eye (Lond). 2003 May;17(4):497-500
pubmed: 12802350
Int J Clin Pract. 2009 Mar;63(3):433-8
pubmed: 19222628
Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2012 Nov 09;53(12):7600-7
pubmed: 23049089
BMC Ophthalmol. 2017 Jun 13;17(1):89
pubmed: 28610611
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2007 Jul-Aug;14(4):179-83
pubmed: 17896294
Telemed J. 2000 Summer;6(2):219-23
pubmed: 10957734
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012 Sep-Oct;60(5):428-31
pubmed: 22944754
Ophthalmology. 1991 May;98(5 Suppl):786-806
pubmed: 2062513
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2008 Apr;36(3):265-73
pubmed: 18412597
Trop Med Int Health. 2018 Apr;23(4):405-414
pubmed: 29430785
Diabet Med. 1998 Feb;15(2):170-5
pubmed: 9507921
Middle East Afr J Ophthalmol. 2012 Apr-Jun;19(2):178-84
pubmed: 22623855
BMC Endocr Disord. 2014 Mar 04;14:20
pubmed: 24588941
Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jul;88(7):920-4
pubmed: 15205238
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug;62(8):851-6
pubmed: 25230960
Ceylon Med J. ;62(3):205-206
pubmed: 29082731
Diabetes Metab. 2008 Jun;34(3):290-3
pubmed: 18406188
Diabet Med. 2003 Jul;20(7):528-34
pubmed: 12823232
Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Oct;87(10):1258-63
pubmed: 14507762
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2004 Dec;82(6):666-72
pubmed: 15606461
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Jan;11(1):135-137
pubmed: 28264174
Bull World Health Organ. 2018 Oct 1;96(10):705-715
pubmed: 30455518
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2017 Jan;11(1):128-134
pubmed: 27402242
J Med Assoc Thai. 2008 Sep;91(9):1397-403
pubmed: 18843870
Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2000 Apr;78(2):164-8
pubmed: 10794249
Acta Diabetol. 2017 Jun;54(6):515-525
pubmed: 28224275
JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 Dec 10;7(12):e10900
pubmed: 30530458
BMJ. 2000 Jun 17;320(7250):1627-31
pubmed: 10856062
Ophthalmologica. 2005 Sep-Oct;219(5):292-6
pubmed: 16123556
J R Soc Med. 2003 Jun;96(6):273-6
pubmed: 12782690
Arch Ophthalmol. 2011 Jul;129(7):930-5
pubmed: 21746983
Br J Ophthalmol. 2012 May;96(5):614-8
pubmed: 22133988
Ann Fam Med. 2008 Sep-Oct;6(5):428-34
pubmed: 18779547
Diabetes Care. 2005 Oct;28(10):2448-53
pubmed: 16186278
J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Feb 01;10(2):282-94
pubmed: 26830491
Med J Aust. 2013 Feb 4;198(2):93-6
pubmed: 23373499
BMJ. 1995 Oct 28;311(7013):1131-5
pubmed: 7580708
Br J Ophthalmol. 2018 May;102(5):575-585
pubmed: 29545417
BMC Med. 2013 Jul 02;11:157
pubmed: 23819888
Diabetes Technol Ther. 2009 Jan;11(1):45-50
pubmed: 19132855
Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2016 May;44(4):300-20
pubmed: 26991970
Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;24(4):217-221
pubmed: 28658588
Indian J Ophthalmol. 2008 Nov-Dec;56(6):489-94
pubmed: 18974520
Diabet Med. 2001 Mar;18(3):178-84
pubmed: 11318837