ArticleEye (London, England)2023
Comparison of 50° handheld fundus camera versus ultra-widefield table-top fundus camera for diabetic retinopathy detection and grading.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of ultra-widefield imaging with navigated central and peripheral cross-sectional and three-dimensional swept source optical coherence tomography in ophthalmology: Clinical applications.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological SocietyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the performance of a handheld fundus camera with standard 50° visual field to ultra-widefield (UWF) table-top fundus camera in diabetic retinopathy (DR) detection and grading.
methodsPatients affected by diabetes mellitus and referred to our diabetic retinopathy clinic were enroled and underwent fundus photography in mydriasis. All photos were taken using the ultra-widefield table-top fundus camera Zeiss Clarus™ 500 (four fields per eye) and the Optomed Aurora® handheld fundus camera (3 fields per eye). The following parameters were analysed: the gradability of the images, the grade of DR, and diabetic maculopathy (DM), the presence of hypertensive retinopathy (HR) and the presence of other ocular diseases.
resultsWe enroled 759 eyes of 384 diabetic patients and analysed 5313 fundus photos. The handheld fundus camera obtained a sensitivity of 84.2% and specificity of 95.4% for referable cases. Moreover, it obtained, compared to UWF, an almost perfect agreement with linear weighting for DR, DM and HR (k = 0.877, k = 0.854, and k = 0.961, respectively). The lowest sensitivity was achieved for proliferative DR (58.7% sensitivity, 100% specificity).
conclusionsOptomed Aurora® handheld fundus camera imaging showed a strong agreement compared to UWF in grading DR, considering all DR and DM grades, in mydriasis. However, the use of UWF imaging increases the detection of referable eyes.
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.