Comparison of Telemedicine Screening of Diabetic Retinopathy by Mydriatic Smartphone-Based vs Nonmydriatic Tabletop Camera-Based Fundus Imaging

Mydriatic smartphone-based imaging resulted in fewer ungradable photos compared to nonmydriatic table-top camera imaging and detected more patients with referral-warranted DR. Our study supports the use of mydriatic smartphone teleophthalmology as an alternative method to screen for DR.

This was a single-institutional, cross-sectional, comparative-instrument study. Fifty-six patients at a safety-net hospital underwent teleophthalmology screening for DR using standard, nonmydriatic fundus photography with a tabletop camera (Nidek NM-1000) and dilated fundus photography using a smartphone camera with lens adapter (Paxos Scope, Verana Health). Masked graders performed standardized photo grading. Quantitative comparisons were performed employing descriptive, κ, Bland-Altman, and receiver operating characteristic analyses.

To compare dilated smartphone-based imaging with a nonmydriatic, tabletop fundus camera as a teleophthalmology screening tool for diabetic retinopathy (DR).

Posterior segment photography was of sufficient quality to grade in 89% of mydriatic smartphone-imaged eyes and in 86% of nonmydriatic tabletop camera-imaged eyes (P = .03). Using the tabletop camera as the reference to detect moderate nonproliferative DR or worse (referral-warranted DR), mydriatic smartphone-acquired photographs were found to be 82% sensitive and 96% specific. Dilated smartphone imaging detected referral-warranted DR in 3 eyes whose tabletop camera imaging did not demonstrate referral-warranted DR. Secondary masked review of medical records for the discordances in referral-warranted status from the two imaging modalities was performed, and it revealed revised sensitivity and specificity values of 95% and 98%, respectively. Overall, there was good agreement between tabletop camera and smartphone-acquired photo grades (κ = 0.91 ± 0.1, P < .001; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve = 0.99, 95% CI, 0.98-1.00). Conclusions: Mydriatic smartphone-based imaging resulted in fewer ungradable photos compared to nonmydriatic table-top camera imaging and detected more patients with referral-warranted DR. Our study supports the use of mydriatic smartphone teleophthalmology as an alternative method to screen for DR.