Précis: The C3 fields analyzer (CFA) is a moderately reliable perimeter preferred by patients to standard perimetry. While it does not approximate the gold standard, it was sensitive and specific for clinically defined glaucoma (area under the receiving operator characteristic curve=0.77 to 0.86). Purpose: Testing the visual field is a vital sign for diagnosing and managing glaucoma. The current gold standard, the Humphrey visual field analyzer (HFA), is large, expensive and can be uncomfortable for some patients. The current study investigated the CFA, a virtual reality head-mounted visual field testing device, as a possible subjective field test for glaucoma screening and eventually glaucoma monitoring. Patients and Methods: The CFA presented stimuli in the same 54 positions as the HFA 24-2 SITA Standard test using a suprathreshold algorithm approximating an 18 dB deficit. A total of 157 patients (both controls and glaucoma patients) at the Aravind Eye Hospital, Pondicherry, India, were tested with both devices. Results: The number of stimuli missed on the CFA correlated with HFA mean deviation (r=0.62, P<0.001), and with pattern standard deviation (r=0.36, P<0.001). The area under the receiving operator characteristic curve was 0.77±0.06 for mild glaucoma (HFA mean deviation ≥−6 dB) and 0.86±0.04 for moderate-advanced glaucoma (HFA mean deviation <−6 dB). Patients with an 18 dB or worse deficit at a point in the visual field on the HFA failed to see the CFA stimulus at the same position 38% of the time. Conclusions: While the CFA did not reliably identify deficits that matched the HFA, it was moderately effective at identifying glaucoma subjects. Further refinements to the device will be required to improve point by point testing performance and screening performance.

Purpose: To analyze predictors of image quality for a handheld nonmydriatic fundus camera used for screening of vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Methods: An ophthalmic photographer at an Aravind Eye Hospital obtained nonmydriatic and mydriatic fundus images from 3 fields in 275 eyes of 155 participants over 13 months using a Smartscope camera (Optomed, Oulu, Finland) and a Topcon tabletop fundus camera (Topcon, Tokyo, Japan). Two fellowship-trained retina specialists graded the images. Repeated-measures logistic regression assessed predictors of the main outcome measure: gradability of the fundus images. Results: Of 2,475 images, 76.2% of the Smartscope nonmydriatic images, 90.1% of the Smartscope mydriatic images, and 92.0% of the Topcon mydriatic images were gradable. Eyes with vitreous hemorrhage (OR = 0.24, p < 0.0001) or advanced cataract (OR = 0.08, p < 0.0001) had decreased odds of image gradability. Excluding eyes with cataract or vitreous hemorrhage, nonmydriatic macular image gradability improved from 68.4% in the first set of 55 eyes to 94.6% in the final set of 55 eyes. Conclusion: With sufficient training, paraprofessional health care staff can obtain high-quality images with a portable nonmydriatic fundus camera, particularly in patients with clear lenses and clear ocular media.

PurposeTo evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of a portable non-mydriatic fundus camera to diagnose vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy (VTDR).Patients and methodsA prospective, single-site, comparative instrument validation study was undertaken at the Aravind Eye Care System. Overall, 155 subjects with and without diabetes were recruited. Images from 275 eyes were obtained with the (1) non-mydriatic Smartscope, (2) mydriatic Smartscope, and (3) mydriatic table-top camera of the macular, nasal, and superotemporal fields. A retina specialist performed a dilated fundus examination (DFE), (reference standard). Two masked retina specialists graded the images. Sensitivity and specificity to detect VTDR with the undilated Smartscope was calculated compared to DFE.ResultsGraders 1 and 2 had a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI): 87-97%) and 88% (95% CI: 81-93%) and a specificity of 84% (95% CI: 77-89%) and 90% (95% CI: 84-94%), respectively, in diagnosing VTDR with the undilated Smartscope compared to DFE. Compared with the dilated Topcon images, graders 1 and 2 had sensitivity of 88% (95% CI: 81-93%) and 82% (95% CI: 73-88%) and specificity of 99% (95% CI: 96-100%) and 99% (95% CI: 95-100%).ConclusionsRemote graders had high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing VTDR with undilated Smartscope images, suggesting utility where portability is a necessity.

No abstract

No abstract