2017
DOI: 10.2147/opth.s140064
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Quality and learning curve of handheld versus stand-alone non-mydriatic cameras

Abstract: PurposeNowadays, complex digital imaging systems allow detailed retinal imaging without dilating patients’ pupils. These so-called non-mydriatic cameras have advantages in common circumstances (eg, for screening or emergency purposes) but present limitations in terms of image quality and field of view. We compare the usefulness of two non-mydriatic camera systems (ie, a handheld versus a stand-alone device) for fundus imaging. The primary outcome was image quality. The secondary outcomes were learning effects … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
15
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 17 publications
(15 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
(15 reference statements)
0
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The inconvenience of the use of the slit-lamp base may not outweigh the gain of easy acquisition of high-quality images for quantitative analysis. It is also worth noting that some of the inexpensive handheld fundus cameras are also available, although some of these cameras do not use smartphones [18,19]. Based on the outcomes in the present study and previous studies [20], the PanOptic system could potentially be used for pre-screening in remote communities.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…The inconvenience of the use of the slit-lamp base may not outweigh the gain of easy acquisition of high-quality images for quantitative analysis. It is also worth noting that some of the inexpensive handheld fundus cameras are also available, although some of these cameras do not use smartphones [18,19]. Based on the outcomes in the present study and previous studies [20], the PanOptic system could potentially be used for pre-screening in remote communities.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Consequently, among the 294 patients, only 92 (31.3%) patients consulted with the ophthalmologist. [12] In their study, Gosheva et al [13] demonstrated that, despite the recommendations, only half of the patients had received the recommended screening for DR. In line with the previous studies, among the 1883 patients who were referred to the ophthalmology clinic, 933 (49.5%) patients were examined by an ophthalmologist in our study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In different studies, retinal photographs of patients with severe cataracts, glaucoma, traumatic injury, and a small pupil could not be obtained or graded. [8][9][10][11][12][13] Gosheva et al [13] in their study had used the same system with us (DRS Centervue) and got better quality images with a minimum diameter of >3 mm pupil size. The proportion of photographs that could not be evaluated in the work of Kim et al [10] varied between 10% and 30%, depending on the mydriatic appli-cation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Handheld cameras have been used previously for retina and optic disc screening [32,33], and they have been compared, with good results, with stand-alone nonmydriatic cameras [34]. The quality of the images for screening is a key point.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%