Cargando…
Ultra-Widefield Imaging as a Teleophthalmology Screening Tool for Ocular Pathology
BACKGROUND: Prior studies have validated ultra-widefield imaging as a remote screening tool for diabetic retinopathy. The aim of this study was to determine its use in screening for any fundus pathology in a routine patient population. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study, patients underwen...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dove
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10624638/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37927576 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S433864 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: Prior studies have validated ultra-widefield imaging as a remote screening tool for diabetic retinopathy. The aim of this study was to determine its use in screening for any fundus pathology in a routine patient population. METHODS: In this prospective randomized study, patients underwent both slit lamp indirect ophthalmoscopy and ultra-widefield imaging. Ultra-widefield images were independently reviewed by two optometrists, and discrepancies were adjudicated by a retina specialist. Clinical findings from slit-lamp examiners and image-reviewers were coded into themes and clinically meaningful findings were extracted. Cohen’s kappa was used to estimate agreement for these findings between the two image-reviewers and between the image-reviewers and slit-lamp examiners. RESULTS: Nine-hundred eyes of 450 patients were examined and imaged, of which 616 eyes were analyzed. At least one abnormal fundus finding was present on ophthalmoscopy in 71 eyes (11%) and on adjudicated image interpretation in 166 eyes (27%). Agreement between the two image-reviewers was moderate to substantial for most clinically meaningful findings, including optic disc hemorrhage (κ = 0.8), macular exudates (κ = 0.7), and macular pigmentary changes (κ = 0.7). Agreement between examiners and image-reviewers was moderate to substantial for optic disc hemorrhage (κ = 1), indistinct optic disc margins (κ = 0.5), drusen (κ = 0.4), pigmentary changes (κ = 0.4), and hemorrhage (κ = 0.8). A total of 187 findings were detected by imaging but not examination, compared with 42 that were detected on examination but not imaging. CONCLUSION: In a routine patient population, ultra-widefield imaging agreed with standard-of-care slit-lamp examinations and detected more fundus findings. |
---|