Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Comparative Trial of Photography and Scanning Laser Ophthalmoscopy
Peter J. Wilson, John Ellis, Carrie MacEwen, A Ellingford, J F Talbot, Graham Leese
Abstract
Open-access reader
Peter J. Wilson, John Ellis, Carrie MacEwen, A Ellingford, J F Talbot, Graham Leese
Abstract
Open-access reader
AIMS: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of wide-field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (WSLO) in the detection of referable diabetic eye disease, and to compare its performance with digital retinal photography. METHODS: Patients enrolled into the study underwent non-mydriatic WSLO imaging, then single- and dual-field mydriatic digital retinal photography, and examination with slit lamp biomicroscopy, the reference standard. Grading of retinopathy was performed in a masked fashion. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients (759 eyes) were recruited to the study. Technical failure rates for dilated single-field retinal photography, dual-field retinal photography and undilated WSLO were 6.3, 5.8 and 10.8%, respectively (0.005 < p < 0.02 for photography vs. WSLO). The respective indices for screening sensitivity were 82.9, 82.9 and 83.6% (p > 0.2). Specificity was 92.1, 91.1 and 89.5%, respectively (p > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity for WSLO were similar to retinal photography. The technical failure rate was greater for the WSLO used in this study.
OpenAlex reports 49 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
AIMS: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of wide-field scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (WSLO) in the detection of referable diabetic eye disease, and to compare its performance with digital retinal photography. METHODS: Patients enrolled into the study underwent non-mydriatic WSLO imaging, then single- and dual-field mydriatic digital retinal photography, and examination with slit lamp biomicroscopy, the reference standard. Grading of retinopathy was performed in a masked fashion. RESULTS: A total of 380 patients (759 eyes) were recruited to the study. Technical failure rates for dilated single-field retinal photography, dual-field retinal photography and undilated WSLO were 6.3, 5.8 and 10.8%, respectively (0.005 < p < 0.02 for photography vs. WSLO). The respective indices for screening sensitivity were 82.9, 82.9 and 83.6% (p > 0.2). Specificity was 92.1, 91.1 and 89.5%, respectively (p > 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity and specificity for WSLO were similar to retinal photography. The technical failure rate was greater for the WSLO used in this study.
Key concepts: Fundus photography, Medicine, Ophthalmology, Retinal, Ophthalmoscopy, Photography, Diabetic retinopathy, Optometry