Comparison of Multiple Stereoscopic and Monoscopic Digital Image Formats to Film for Diabetic Macular Edema Evaluation

Li, Helen K.; Hubbard, Larry D.; Danis, Ronald P.; Flórez-Arango, José F.; Esquivel, Adol; Krupiński, Elizabeth A.

doi:10.1167/iovs.10-5504

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Li et al [21] previously reported a comparison of multiple stereoscopic and monoscopic digital images for DME evaluation. No significant difference in detecting DME features using both types of digital images was found.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Retinal Fundus Image Analysis in Detecting Diabetic Maculopathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Digital retinal imaging is the gold standard technique for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular oedema (DME) assessment during DR screening. Objectives: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of digital retinal fundus image (DRFI) analysis in detecting DME using three manual grading systems (MGS) and comparing it with optical coherence tomography (OCT) findings. Method: A total of 287 DRFI of 287 eyes were analysed. Non-stereoscopic 45° images were acquired using a Kowa VX-20 camera and were graded according to three MGS: Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS), International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy (ICDR), and United Kingdom National Screening Committee (UKNSC). The two graders were masked to the patient’s clinical DR status. DME characteristics were analysed using OCTs. Results: A very good agreement in detecting DME was found with Cohen’s κ = 0.83 (ICDR vs. ETDRS), κ = 0.83 (ICDR vs. UKNSC), and κ = 0.82 (ETDRS vs. UKNSC). Sensitivity and specificity of DRFI analysis in DME assessment were 70.0 and 69.6% for UKNSC, 71.9 and 67.4% for ETDRS, and 70.9 and 65.2% for ICDR, respectively. Positive and negative predictive values were 91.7 and 32.7% for UKNSC, 91.4 and 33.3% for ETDRS, and 90.7 and 31.9% for ICDR, respectively. On OCT scans, micro-architectural damages of both inner and outer retinal layers and mean ganglion cell layer thickness showed a significant association with the presence of DME detected with DRFI analysis. Conclusions: Despite the low negative predictive value, the good specificity and sensitivity of DRFI in detecting DME make it a useful tool in a routine clinical setting, and its potential in diabetic eye screening is yet to be realized.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Retinal Fundus Image Analysis in Detecting Diabetic Maculopathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…26 Without direct assessment of retinal thickening through stereoscopic evaluation or optical coherence tomography (OCT), determination of DME relies upon surrogate lesions of hard exudates or microaneurysms in the macular field. 27,28 However, macular edema is not completely defined or identifiable by these surrogate markers in all cases. 29,30 Central-involved DME or not central-involved DME is often accompanied by other DR lesions that may also independently trigger referral.…”

Section: Practice Guidelines For Ocular Telehealth-drmentioning

confidence: 99%

Practice Guidelines for Ocular Telehealth-Diabetic Retinopathy, Third Edition

Horton

Brady

Cavallerano

et al. 2020

Telemedicine and e-Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The following document and appendices represent the third edition of the Practice Guidelines for Ocular Telehealth-Diabetic Retinopathy. These guidelines were developed by the Diabetic Retinopathy Telehealth Practice Guidelines Working Group. This working group consisted of a large number of subject matter experts in clinical applications for telehealth in ophthalmology. The editorial committee consisted of Mark B. Horton, OD, MD, who served as working group chair and Christopher J. Brady, MD, MHS, and Jerry Cavallerano, OD, PhD, who served as cochairs. The writing committees were separated into seven different categories. They are as follows:

show abstract

“…147 Furthermore, the difference in detection between monoscopic and stereoscopic photography in practice may be less than expected. 148,149 For further information, see Appendix D.…”

Section: Can Teleophthalmology Detect Macular Edema?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Excerpt from the Canadian Ophthalmological Society evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of diabetic retinopathy

Hooper

Boucher

Cruess

et al. 2017

Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of Multiple Stereoscopic and Monoscopic Digital Image Formats to Film for Diabetic Macular Edema Evaluation

Abstract: Stereoscopic digital formats are equivalent to monoscopic for DME evaluation, but digital photography is not as sensitive as film in detecting CSME and RTCM.

Cited by 14 publications

References 15 publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Retinal Fundus Image Analysis in Detecting Diabetic Maculopathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Diagnostic Accuracy of Digital Retinal Fundus Image Analysis in Detecting Diabetic Maculopathy in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Practice Guidelines for Ocular Telehealth-Diabetic Retinopathy, Third Edition

Excerpt from the Canadian Ophthalmological Society evidence-based clinical practice guidelines for the management of diabetic retinopathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About