Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26189190›Full record

ArticleOphthalmology2015

Comparison Among Methods of Retinopathy Assessment (CAMRA) Study: Smartphone, Nonmydriatic, and Mydriatic Photography.

Martha E Ryan, Ramachandran Rajalakshmi, Vijayaraghavan Prathiba, Ranjit Mohan Anjana, Harish Ranjani, K M Venkat Narayan, Timothy W Olsen, Viswanathan Mohan, Laura A Ward, Michael J Lynn and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 55 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

55 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Cost-effectiveness of Different Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Modalities.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Hypertensive eye disease.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2022
    Review
  20. [Smartphone-based fundus imaging: applications and adapters].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Martha E RyanDepartment of Ophthalmology, Emory Eye Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Ramachandran RajalakshmiDr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre, Chennai, India.
Vijayaraghavan PrathibaDr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre, Chennai, India.
Ranjit Mohan AnjanaDr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre, Chennai, India.
Harish RanjaniDr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre, Chennai, India.
K M Venkat NarayanRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Timothy W OlsenDepartment of Ophthalmology, Emory Eye Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia.
Viswanathan MohanDr. Mohan's Diabetes Specialities Centre, Chennai, India.
Laura A WardRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Michael J LynnRollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
Andrew M HendrickDepartment of Ophthalmology, Emory Eye Center, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: ahendrick@emory.edu.

Funding

P30-Core Grant for Vision Research Core CP30EY006360 · NEI · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI BOATRIGHT, JEFFREY H · 1986 to 2025
$15.3M
Vanderbilt-Emory-Cornell-Duke Consortium for Global Health Fellows (VECDor)R25TW009337 · FIC · VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER · PI HEIMBURGER, DOUGLAS CORBETT, VERMUND, STEN H. · 2012 to 2016
$6.3M
FIC NIH HHS R25 TW009337NEI NIH HHS P30 EY006360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe compared smartphone fundus photography, nonmydriatic fundus photography, and 7-field mydriatic fundus photography for their abilities to detect and grade diabetic retinopathy (DR).

designThis was a prospective, comparative study of 3 photography modalities.

participantsDiabetic patients (n = 300) were recruited at the ophthalmology clinic of a tertiary diabetes care center in Chennai, India.

methodsPatients underwent photography by all 3 modalities, and photographs were evaluated by 2 retina specialists.

main outcome measuresThe sensitivity and specificity in the detection of DR for both smartphone and nonmydriatic photography were determined by comparison with the standard method, 7-field mydriatic fundus photography.

resultsThe sensitivity and specificity of smartphone fundus photography, compared with 7-field mydriatic fundus photography, for the detection of any DR were 50% (95% confidence interval [CI], 43-56) and 94% (95% CI, 92-97), respectively, and of nonmydriatic fundus photography were 81% (95% CI, 75-86) and 94% (95% CI, 92-96%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of smartphone fundus photography for the detection of vision-threatening DR were 59% (95% CI, 46-72) and 100% (95% CI, 99-100), respectively, and of nonmydriatic fundus photography were 54% (95% CI, 40-67) and 99% (95% CI, 98-100), respectively.

conclusionsSmartphone and nonmydriatic fundus photography are each able to detect DR and sight-threatening disease. However, the nonmydriatic camera is more sensitive at detecting DR than the smartphone. At this time, the benefits of the smartphone (connectivity, portability, and reduced cost) are not offset by the lack of sufficient sensitivity for detection of DR in most clinical circumstances.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalSmartphoneAdultDiabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMydriaticsPhotographyProspective StudiesPupilReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and SpecificityMydriatics

Identifiers

PMID26189190
PMCPMC4581972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.