Comparisons of handheld retinal imaging devices with ultrawide field images for determining diabetic retinopathy severity

Abstract

AbstractPurposeTo compare diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity identified on handheld retinal imaging with ultrawide field (UWF) images.MethodsMydriatic images of 225 eyes of 118 diabetic patients were prospectively imaged with the Aurora (AU) handheld retinal camera [5‐field protocol (macula‐centred, disc‐centred, temporal, superior, inferior)] and compared with UWF images. Images were classified based on the international classification for DR. Sensitivity, specificity, kappa statistics (K/Kw) were calculated on an eye and person‐level.ResultsDistribution of DR severity by AU/UWF images (%) by eye was no DR 41.3/36.0, mild non‐proliferative DR (NPDR) 18.7/17.8, moderate 10.2/10.7, severe 16.4/15.1, proliferative DR (PDR) 13.3/20.4. Agreement between UWF and AU was exact in 64.4%, within 1‐step 90.7%, k = 0.55 (95% CI:0.45–0.65), and kw = 0.79 (95% CI:0.73–0.85) by eye, and exact in 68%, within 1‐step 92.9%, k = 0.58 (95% CI:0.50–0.66), and kw = 0.76 (95% CI:0.70–0.81) by person. Sensitivity/specificity for any DR, refDR, vtDR and PDR were as follows: 0.90/0.83, 0.90/0.97, 0.82/0.95 and 0.69/1.00 by person and 0.86/0.90, 0.84/0.98, 0.75/0.95 and 0.63/0.99 by eye. Handheld imaging missed 37% (17/46) eyes and 30.8% (8/26) persons with PDR. Only 3.9% (1/26) persons or 6.5% (3/46) eyes with PDR were missed if a referral threshold of moderate NPDR was used.ConclusionsData from this study show that comparing UWF and handheld images, when PDR was the referral threshold for handheld devices, 37.0% of eyes or 30.8% of patients with PDR were missed. Due to the identification of neovascular lesions outside of the handheld fields, lower referral thresholds are needed if handheld devices are used.