TY - JOUR
T1 - Glaucoma Screening in Nepal
T2 - Cup-to-Disc Estimate With Standard Mydriatic Fundus Camera Compared to Portable Nonmydriatic Camera
AU - Miller, Sarah E.
AU - Thapa, Suman
AU - Robin, Alan L.
AU - Niziol, Leslie M.
AU - Ramulu, Pradeep Y.
AU - Woodward, Maria A.
AU - Paudyal, Indira
AU - Pitha, Ian
AU - Kim, Tyson N.
AU - Newman-Casey, Paula Anne
N1 - Funding Information:
Funding/Support: This work was supported by the National Eye Institute, Bethesda, MD (K23 Mentored Clinical Scientist Award K23EY023596 [M.A.W.], K23EY025320 [P.A.N.C.]); and Research to Prevent Blindness (P.A.N.C.). The funding sources had no role in the design, conduct, or interpretation of this study. The Pictor camera was purchased by the University of Michigan and was loaned to the Tilganga Eye Institute. Financial Disclosures: Alan L. Robin is a consultant for Aerie Pharmaceuticals and Biolight Pharmaceuticals and is a medical monitor for Macuclear. Maria A. Woodward is on the advisory board for Intelligent Retinal Imaging Systems. Paula Anne Newman-Casey is a consultant for Blue Health Intelligence. The following authors have no financial disclosures: Sarah E. Miller, Suman Thapa, Leslie M. Niziol, Pradeep Y. Ramulu, Indira Paudyal, Ian Pitha, and Tyson N. Kim. All authors attest that they meet the current ICMJE criteria for authorship.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 Elsevier Inc.
PY - 2017/10
Y1 - 2017/10
N2 - Purpose To compare cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) measurements from images taken with a portable, 45-degree nonmydriatic fundus camera to images from a traditional tabletop mydriatic fundus camera. Design Prospective, cross-sectional, comparative instrument validation study. Methods SETTING: Clinic-based. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 422 eyes of 211 subjects were recruited from the Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology (Kathmandu, Nepal). Two masked readers measured CDR and noted possible evidence of glaucoma (CDR ≥ 0.7 or the presence of a notch or disc hemorrhage) from fundus photographs taken with a nonmydriatic portable camera and a mydriatic standard camera. Each image was graded twice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effect of camera modality on CDR measurement; inter- and intraobserver agreement for each camera for the diagnosis of glaucoma. Results A total of 196 eyes (46.5%) were diagnosed with glaucoma by chart review; 41.2%–59.0% of eyes were remotely diagnosed with glaucoma over grader, repeat measurement, and camera modality. There was no significant difference in CDR measurement between cameras after adjusting for grader and measurement order (estimate = 0.004, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.003–0.011, P =.24). There was moderate interobserver reliability for the diagnosis of glaucoma (Pictor: κ = 0.54, CI, 0.46–0.61; Topcon: κ = 0.63, CI, 0.55–0.70) and moderate intraobserver agreement upon repeat grading (Pictor: κ = 0.63 and 0.64, for graders 1 and 2, respectively; Topcon: κ = 0.72 and 0.80, for graders 1 and 2, respectively). Conclusions A portable, nonmydriatic, fundus camera can facilitate remote evaluation of disc images on par with standard mydriatic fundus photography.
AB - Purpose To compare cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) measurements from images taken with a portable, 45-degree nonmydriatic fundus camera to images from a traditional tabletop mydriatic fundus camera. Design Prospective, cross-sectional, comparative instrument validation study. Methods SETTING: Clinic-based. STUDY POPULATION: A total of 422 eyes of 211 subjects were recruited from the Tilganga Institute of Ophthalmology (Kathmandu, Nepal). Two masked readers measured CDR and noted possible evidence of glaucoma (CDR ≥ 0.7 or the presence of a notch or disc hemorrhage) from fundus photographs taken with a nonmydriatic portable camera and a mydriatic standard camera. Each image was graded twice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effect of camera modality on CDR measurement; inter- and intraobserver agreement for each camera for the diagnosis of glaucoma. Results A total of 196 eyes (46.5%) were diagnosed with glaucoma by chart review; 41.2%–59.0% of eyes were remotely diagnosed with glaucoma over grader, repeat measurement, and camera modality. There was no significant difference in CDR measurement between cameras after adjusting for grader and measurement order (estimate = 0.004, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.003–0.011, P =.24). There was moderate interobserver reliability for the diagnosis of glaucoma (Pictor: κ = 0.54, CI, 0.46–0.61; Topcon: κ = 0.63, CI, 0.55–0.70) and moderate intraobserver agreement upon repeat grading (Pictor: κ = 0.63 and 0.64, for graders 1 and 2, respectively; Topcon: κ = 0.72 and 0.80, for graders 1 and 2, respectively). Conclusions A portable, nonmydriatic, fundus camera can facilitate remote evaluation of disc images on par with standard mydriatic fundus photography.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85028591489&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85028591489&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.07.010
DO - 10.1016/j.ajo.2017.07.010
M3 - Article
C2 - 28734816
AN - SCOPUS:85028591489
SN - 0002-9394
VL - 182
SP - 99
EP - 106
JO - American Journal of Ophthalmology
JF - American Journal of Ophthalmology
ER -