Comparison of Standard 7-Field, Clarus, and Optos Ultrawidefield Imaging Systems for Diabetic Retinopathy (COCO Study).

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity levels assessed from 7 standard-field stereoscopic color photographs on a 35° fundus camera to both Clarus and Optos ultrawidefield color images. Design: Cross-sectional, comparative imaging study. Participants: Participants with DR imaged at a single-center retina practice. Methods: Participants were imaged on 3 cameras at a single visit with the Topcon 35° fundus camera, Clarus, and Optos. The DR Severity Scale (DRSS) level was determined within the 7-field (7F) area of each image set using the ETDRS scale. An additional global DRSS was assigned for both Clarus and Optos images using the entire visible retina. Weighted kappa (wκ) measured the agreement between cameras. Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was a 3-way comparison of DRSS level within the 7F area imaged on the 3 cameras. Secondary outcomes included a comparison of the DRSS obtained with standard 7F imaging to the global DRSS of Clarus and Optos and a comparison of the global DRSS between Clarus and Optos only. Results: Ninety-seven eyes (50 participants) were evaluated. Agreement within 1-step of ETDRS levels between standard 7F imaging and Clarus 7F was 90.1% (wκ = 0.65), and with Optos 7F in 85.9%, (wκ = 0.58). Agreement within 1-step between standard 7F imaging and Clarus global was 88.9% of eyes (wκ = 0.63), and Optos global was 85.7%, (wκ = 0.54). Agreement between Clarus and Optos global DR level within 1-step was 89.1% (wκ = 0.68). Intergrader agreement for the 7F ETDRS level was 96% for standard 7F imaging, 98% for Clarus, and 95.5% for Optos. Conclusions: These findings suggest that when evaluating the 7F area on Clarus and Optos, DR severity grades are comparable to standard 7F imaging. However, it is important to understand the unique attributes and differences of each fundus camera when changing the type of system used in a clinical setting due to upgrading equipment. Additionally, if the facility has access to > 1 device, there should not be an exchange between cameras for the same patient. Financial Disclosures: Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found in the Footnotes and Disclosures at the end of this article.