These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Nonmydriatic ultrawide field retinal imaging compared with dilated standard 7-field 35-mm photography and retinal specialist examination for evaluation of diabetic retinopathy.
    Author: Silva PS, Cavallerano JD, Sun JK, Noble J, Aiello LM, Aiello LP.
    Journal: Am J Ophthalmol; 2012 Sep; 154(3):549-559.e2. PubMed ID: 22626617.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To compare nonmydriatic stereoscopic Optomap ultrawide field images with dilated stereoscopic Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study 7-standard field 35-mm color 30-degree fundus photographs (ETDRS photography) and clinical examination for determining diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) severity. DESIGN: Single-site, prospective, comparative, instrument validation study. METHODS: One hundred three diabetic patients (206 eyes) representing the full spectrum of DR severity underwent nonmydriatic ultrawide field 100-degree and 200-degree imaging, dilated ETDRS photography, and dilated fundus examination by a retina specialist. Two independent readers graded images to determine DR and DME severity. A third masked retina specialist adjudicated discrepancies. RESULTS: Based on ETDRS photography (n = 200), the results were as follows: no DR (n = 25 eyes [12.5%]), mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR; 47 [23.5%]), moderate NPDR (61 [30.5%]), severe NPDR (11 [5.5%]), very severe NPDR (3 [1.5%]), and proliferative DR (52 [2.5%]). One (0.5%) eye was ungradable and 6 eyes did not complete ETDRS photography. No DME was found in 114 eyes (57.0%), DME was found in 28 eyes (14.0%), and clinically significant DME was found in 47 eyes (23.5%), and 11 (5.5%) eyes were ungradable. Exact DR severity agreement between ultrawide field 100-degree imaging and ETDRS photography occurred in 84%, with agreement within 1 level in 91% (K(W) = 0.85; K = 0.79). Nonmydriatic ultrawide field images exactly matched clinical examination results for DR in 70% and were within 1 level in 93% (K(W) = 0.71; K = 0.61). Nonmydriatic ultrawide field imaging acquisition time was less than half that of dilated ETDRS photography (P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Nonmydriatic ultrawide field images compare favorably with dilated ETDRS photography and dilated fundus examination in determining DR and DME severity; however, they are acquired more rapidly. If confirmed in broader diabetic populations, nonmydriatic ultrawide field imaging may prove to be beneficial in DR evaluation in research and clinical settings.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]