Comparison of 2-Field and 5-Field Mydriatic Handheld Retinal Imaging in a Community-Based Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program

• Published in: Ophthalmologica (Basel) Vol. 246; no. 3-4; pp. 203 - 208
• Main Authors: Aquino, Lizzie Anne C., Salongcay, Recivall P., Alog, Glenn P, Locaylocay, Kaye B, Saunar, Aileen V, Peto, Tunde, Silva, Paolo S
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Basel, Switzerland 01.11.2023
• Subjects: Cross-Sectional Studies; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy - diagnosis; Humans; Mydriatics; Prospective Studies; Research Article; Retina; Handheld retinal camera; Retinal imaging; Diabetic retinopathy screening
• ISSN: 0030-3755; 1423-0267
• DOI: 10.1159/000530903

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare 2-field (2F) and 5-field (5F) mydriatic handheld retinal imaging for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity in a community-based DR screening program (DRSP). Methods: This was a prospective, cross-sectional diagnostic study, evaluating images of 805 eyes from 407 consecutive patients with diabetes acquired from a community-based DRSP. Mydriatic standardized 5F imaging (macula, disc, superior, inferior, temporal) with handheld retinal camera was performed. 2F (disc, macula), and 5F images were independently assessed using the International DR classification at a centralized reading center. Simple (K) and weighted (Kw) kappa statistics were calculated for DR. Sensitivity and specificity for referable DR ([refDR] moderate nonproliferative DR [NPDR] or worse) and vision-threatening DR ([vtDR] severe NPDR or worse) for 2F compared to 5F imaging were calculated. Results: Distribution of DR severity by 2F/5F images (%): no DR 66.0/61.7, mild NPDR 10.7/14.4, moderate NPDR 7.9/8.1, severe NPDR 3.3/5.6, proliferative DR 5.6/4.6, ungradable 6.5/5.6. Exact agreement of DR grading between 2F and 5F was 81.7%, within 1-step 97.1% (K = 0.64, Kw = 0.78). Sensitivity/specificity for 2F compared 5F was refDR 0.80/0.97, vtDR 0.73/0.98. The ungradable images rate with 2F was 16.1% higher than with 5F (6.5 vs. 5.6%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Mydriatic 2F and 5F handheld imaging have substantial agreement in assessing severity of DR. However, the use of mydriatic 2F handheld imaging only meets the minimum standards for sensitivity and specificity for refDR but not for vtDR. When using handheld cameras, the addition of peripheral fields in 5F imaging further refines the referral approach by decreasing ungradable rate and increasing sensitivity for vtDR.