Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37149834›Full record

ArticleActa diabetologica2023

Clinical validation of a smartphone-based retinal camera for diabetic retinopathy screening.

Juliana Angélica Estevão de Oliveira, Luis Filipe Nakayama, Lucas Zago Ribeiro, Talita Virgínia Fernandes de Oliveira, Stefano Neto Jai Hyun Choi, Edgar Menezes Neto, Viviane Santos Cardoso, Sergio Atala Dib, Gustavo Barreto Melo, Caio Vinicius Saito Regatieri and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta diabetologica, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Modern Approach to Diabetic Retinopathy Diagnostics.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Juliana Angélica Estevão de Oliveira *Department of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1485-2012
Luis Filipe Nakayama *Department of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil. luisnaka@mit.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6847-6748
Lucas Zago RibeiroDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9130-1500
Talita Virgínia Fernandes de OliveiraDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3930-4776
Stefano Neto Jai Hyun ChoiDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4170-6216
Edgar Menezes NetoSergipe Eye Hospital, Aracaju, SE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5957-4995
Viviane Santos CardosoSergipe Eye Hospital, Aracaju, SE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3885-3426
Sergio Atala DibDivision of Endocrinology and Metabolism, Sao Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8653-8773
Gustavo Barreto MeloSergipe Eye Hospital, Aracaju, SE, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5765-2008
Caio Vinicius Saito RegatieriDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1511-8696
Fernando Korn MalerbiDepartment of Ophthalmology, São Paulo Federal University, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6523-5172
Universidade Federal de São Paulo · BRMassachusetts Institute of Technology · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsThis study aims to compare the performance of a handheld fundus camera (Eyer) and standard tabletop fundus cameras (Visucam 500, Visucam 540, and Canon CR-2) for diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema screening.

methodsThis was a multicenter, cross-sectional study that included images from 327 individuals with diabetes. The participants underwent pharmacological mydriasis and fundus photography in two fields (macula and optic disk centered) with both strategies. All images were acquired by trained healthcare professionals, de-identified, and graded independently by two masked ophthalmologists, with a third senior ophthalmologist adjudicating in discordant cases. The International Classification of Diabetic Retinopathy was used for grading, and demographic data, diabetic retinopathy classification, artifacts, and image quality were compared between devices. The tabletop senior ophthalmologist adjudication label was used as the ground truth for comparative analysis. A univariate and stepwise multivariate logistic regression was performed to determine the relationship of each independent factor in referable diabetic retinopathy.

resultsThe mean age of participants was 57.03 years (SD 16.82, 9-90 years), and the mean duration of diabetes was 16.35 years (SD 9.69, 1-60 years). Age (P = .005), diabetes duration (P = .004), body mass index (P = .005), and hypertension (P < .001) were statistically different between referable and non-referable patients. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed a positive association between male sex (OR 1.687) and hypertension (OR 3.603) with referable diabetic retinopathy. The agreement between devices for diabetic retinopathy classification was 73.18%, with a weighted kappa of 0.808 (almost perfect). The agreement for macular edema was 88.48%, with a kappa of 0.809 (almost perfect). For referable diabetic retinopathy, the agreement was 85.88%, with a kappa of 0.716 (substantial), sensitivity of 0.906, and specificity of 0.808. As for image quality, 84.02% of tabletop fundus camera images were gradable and 85.31% of the Eyer images were gradable.

conclusionsOur study shows that the handheld retinal camera Eyer performed comparably to standard tabletop fundus cameras for diabetic retinopathy and macular edema screening. The high agreement with tabletop devices, portability, and low costs makes the handheld retinal camera a promising tool for increasing coverage of diabetic retinopathy screening programs, particularly in low-income countries. Early diagnosis and treatment have the potential to prevent avoidable blindness, and the present validation study brings evidence that supports its contribution to diabetic retinopathy early diagnosis and treatment.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyMacular EdemaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedRetinaSmartphoneArtificial intelligenceDiabetic retinopathyHandheld retinal cameraMacular edemaPublic healthScreeningSmartphonesTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID37149834
PMCPMC10289975
OpenAlexW4375855331

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.