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 Murgatroyd, H Articles by Leese, G P Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Murgatroyd, H Articles by Leese, G P

Effect of mydriasis and different field strategies on digital image screening of diabetic eye disease

¹ Department of Ophthalmology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK
² Department of Diabetes, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK

Correspondence to:
Correspondence to:
Dr G Leese
Wards 1& 2, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, DD1 9SY, UK; graham.leese{at}tuht.scot.nhs.uk

Aims: To assess the effects of (1) mydriasis and (2) single versus three field photography on screening for diabetic eye disease using digital photography

Method: Slit lamp examination findings were compared to digital fundal photographs for the detection of any retinopathy and for referable retinopathy in 398 patients (794 eyes). A Topcon TRC-NW6S digital non-mydriatic fundus camera was used. Three photographic strategies were used: undilated single field, dilated single field, and dilated multiple fields. The photographs were presented in random order to one of two retinal screeners. For the single field photographs the screeners were masked to the use of mydriatics. In 13% of fundal photographs, grading was performed by both, rather than just one grader.

Results: Mydriasis reduced the proportion of ungradable photographs from 26% to 5% (p<0.001). Neither mydriasis nor three field photography improved the sensitivity or specificity for the detection of any retinopathy or of referable retinopathy when compared with undilated single field photography. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting referable retinopathy using undilated single field photography was 77% (95% CI 71 to 84) and 95 % (95% CI 93 to 97) respectively. Using dilated single field photography the figures were 81% (95% CI 76 to 87) and 92% (95% CI 90 to 94) respectively. Using dilated three field photography the figures were 83% (95% CI 78 to 88) and 93% (95% CI 91 to 96) respectively. Intergrader reliability for the detection of referable retinopathy in gradable photographs was excellent (Kappa values 0.86–1.00).

Conclusions: Mydriasis reduces the technical failure rate. Mydriasis and the three field photography as used in this study do not increase the sensitivity or specificity of detecting diabetic retinopathy.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DD, disc diameter

Keywords: diabetic retinopathy; mydriasis; mass screening; tropicamide

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, 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]