This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Scanlon, P H Articles by Downes, S Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Scanlon, P H Articles by Downes, S

Comparison of two reference standards in validating two field mydriatic digital photography as a method of screening for diabetic retinopathy

¹ Gloucestershire Eye Unit, Cheltenham General Hospital, Sandford Road, Cheltenham GL53 7AN, UK
² Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford, UK
³ Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital, Norwich, UK
⁴ Retinopathy Grading Centre, Imperial College, London, UK
⁵ Gloucestershire R & D Support Unit, UK
⁶ Norwich Diabetes Eye Screening Service, UK
⁷ Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr P H Scanlon, Gloucestershire Eye Unit, Cheltenham General Hospital, Sandford Road, Cheltenham GL53 7AN, UK;
peter.scanlon{at}egnhst.org.uk

Aim: To compare two reference standards when evaluating a method of screening for referable diabetic retinopathy.

Method: Clinics at Oxford and Norwich Hospitals were used in a two centre prospective study of 239 people with diabetes receiving an ophthalmologist’s examination using slit lamp biomicroscopy, seven field 35 mm stereophotography and two field mydriatic digital photography. Patients were selected from those attending clinics when the ophthalmologist and ophthalmic photographer were able to attend. The main outcome measures were the detection of referable diabetic retinopathy as defined by the Gloucestershire adaptation of the European Working Party guidelines.

Results: In comparison with seven field stereophotography, the ophthalmologist’s examination gave a sensitivity of 87.4% (confidence interval 83.5 to 91.5), a specificity of 94.9% (91.5 to 98.3), and a kappa statistic of 0.80. Two field mydriatic digital photography gave a sensitivity of 80.2% (75.2 to 85.2), specificity of 96.2% (93.2 to 99.2), and a kappa statistic of 0.73. In comparison with the ophthalmologist’s examination, two field mydriatic digital photography gave a sensitivity of 82.8% (78.0 to 87.6), specificity of 92.9% (89.6 to 96.2), and a kappa statistic of 0.76. Seven field stereo gave a sensitivity of 96.4% (94.0 to 98.8), a specificity of 82.9% (77.4 to 88.4), and a kappa statistic of 0.80. 15.3% of seven field sets, 1.5% of the two field digital photographs, and none of the ophthalmologist’s examinations were ungradeable.

Conclusion: An ophthalmologist’s examination compares favourably with seven field stereophotography, and two field digital photography performs well against both reference standards.

Keywords: screening; diabetic retinopathy; ophthalmoscopy; digital photography

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. P. Leese, P. Boyle, Z. Feng, A. Emslie-Smith, and J. D. Ellis Screening Uptake in a Well-Established Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Program: The role of geographical access and deprivation Diabetes Care, November 1, 2008; 31(11): 2131 - 2135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P H Scanlon, S C Carter, C Foy, R F A Husband, J Abbas, and M O Bachmann Diabetic retinopathy and socioeconomic deprivation in Gloucestershire J Med Screen, September 1, 2008; 15(3): 118 - 121. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P H Scanlon, C Foy, and F K Chen Visual acuity measurement and ocular co-morbidity in diabetic retinopathy screening Br. J. Ophthalmol., June 1, 2008; 92(6): 775 - 778. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P H Scanlon The English national screening programme for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy J Med Screen, March 1, 2008; 15(1): 1 - 4. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. D. Fleming, S. Philip, K. A. Goatman, J. A. Olson, and P. F. Sharp Automated assessment of diabetic retinal image quality based on clarity and field definition. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci., March 1, 2006; 47(3): 1120 - 1125. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P. H. Scanlon, C. Foy, R. Malhotra, and S. J. Aldington The Influence of Age, Duration of Diabetes, Cataract, and Pupil Size on Image Quality in Digital Photographic Retinal Screening Diabetes Care, October 1, 2005; 28(10): 2448 - 2453. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				P H Scanlon, S Carter, C Foy, D Ratiram, and B Harney An evaluation of the change in activity and workload arising from diabetic ophthalmology referrals following the introduction of a community based digital retinal photographic screening programme Br. J. Ophthalmol., August 1, 2005; 89(8): 971 - 975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H Murgatroyd, A Ellingford, A Cox, M Binnie, J D Ellis, C J MacEwen, and G P Leese Effect of mydriasis and different field strategies on digital image screening of diabetic eye disease Br. J. Ophthalmol., July 1, 2004; 88(7): 920 - 924. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]