ArticleTranslational vision science & technology2021
Comparison of Two Ultra-Widefield Cameras With High Image Resolution and Wider View for Identifying Diabetic Retinopathy Lesions.
Article in Translational vision science & technology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Epiretinal Membrane Detection Rates Between OptosJournal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Field of View Across Widefield Retinal Imaging Systems.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
- A Comparison of Ultra-Widefield Imaging Quality Obtained with Zeiss Clarus and Optos for Virtual Medical Retina Services.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- The Scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 1.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Peripheral and Vitreous Pathology in Ultrawidefield Cameras in Diabetic Eyes.Ophthalmology. Retina · 2024Article
- Comparison of 50° handheld fundus camera versus ultra-widefield table-top fundus camera for diabetic retinopathy detection and grading.Eye (London, England) · 2023Article
- Comparison of peripheral extension, acquisition time, and image chromaticity of Optos, Clarus, and EIDON systems.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2023Article
- Diabetic Macular Oedema Guidelines: An Australian Perspective.Journal of ophthalmology · 2023Review
- Comparison of two ultra-widefield color-fundus imaging devices for visualization of retinal periphery and microvascular lesions in patients with early diabetic retinopathy.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of the Optos P200dTx and Zeiss Clarus 500 fundus cameras in detecting diabetic retinopathy (DR) lesions. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 243 patients with clinically diagnosed diabetes mellitus who were referred for an eye examination from two tertiary eye care centers in Chennai, India. Patients underwent DR screening based on mydriatic fundal images acquired by both fundal cameras. Fundal images from the two separate devices for each eye were compared based on accurately identified pathological retinal lesions with respect to type and location. Results: When studying lesions of the central retina, they were better identified by the Zeiss Clarus compared with the Optos P200dTx, with six out of eight being statistically significant (P < 0.05). However, lesions of the mid-peripheral retina and peripheral retina were better identified by the Optos P200dTx than the Zeiss Clarus, with three out of eight lesions and five out of eight lesions being statistically significant (P < 0.05), respectively. Based on the color and size of lesions, the Optos P200dTx had a higher chance (59.6%) of missing white lesions than did the Zeiss Clarus (17%) (P < 0.0001). Consequently, small- and medium-sized lesions were missed more by the Optos P200dTx (30.72% and 32.63%, respectively) than the Zeiss Clarus (22.3% and 19.30%, respectively). Conclusions: The capability of detecting or missing a particular DR lesion among diabetics differed between the two cameras based on effective field of view, resolution, and the retinal zone being imaged. Translational Relevance: The choice of which ultra-widefield camera to be used for screening DR can be based on the greater prevalence of central versus peripheral retinal lesions noted in the patient population seen in a clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.