Digital versus film Fundus photography for research grading of diabetic retinopathy severity.

PURPOSE To assess agreement between digital and film photography for research classification of diabetic retinopathy severity. METHODS Digital and film photographs from a 152-eye cohort with a full spectrum of Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) severity levels were assessed for repeatability of grading within each image medium and for agreement on ETDRS discrete severity levels, ascending severity thresholds, and presence or absence of diabetic retinopathy index lesions, between digital and 35-mm slides (film). Digital photographs were color balanced to match film. RESULTS There was substantial agreement (κ = 0.61, κ(w) [linear weighted] = 0.87) in classification of ETDRS diabetic retinopathy severity levels between digital images and film. Marginal homogeneity analyses found no significant difference in frequency distributions on the severity scale (P = 0.21, Bhapkar test). The κ results ranged from 0.72 to 0.95 for presence or absence of eight ascending diabetic retinopathy severity thresholds. Repeatability of grading between readers viewing digital images was equal to or better than that obtained with film (pair-wise interreader κ for digital images ranged from 0.47 to 0.57 and for film from 0.43 to 0.57. The κ results for identifying diabetic retinopathy lesions ranged from moderate to almost perfect. Moderate agreement of intraretinal microvascular abnormalities and venous beading between digital images and film accounted for slightly lower concordance for severity thresholds ≥47 and for slightly lower interreader agreement within digital and film images at severity thresholds ≥43 and ≥47. CONCLUSIONS Under controlled circumstances, digital photography can equal the reliability of 35-mm slides for research classification of ETDRS severity level.

[1]  J. R. Landis,et al.  The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. , 1977, Biometrics.

[2]  D L DeMets,et al.  The Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy. III. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is 30 or more years. , 1984, Archives of ophthalmology.

[3]  D. DeMets,et al.  The Wisconsin epidemiologic study of diabetic retinopathy. II. Prevalence and risk of diabetic retinopathy when age at diagnosis is less than 30 years. , 1984, Archives of ophthalmology.

[4]  Tele-ophthalmology via stereoscopic digital imaging: a pilot project. , 2000, Diabetes technology & therapeutics.

[5]  L. Aiello,et al.  Stereo nonmydriatic digital-video color retinal imaging compared with Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study seven standard field 35-mm stereo color photos for determining level of diabetic retinopathy. , 2001, Ophthalmology.

[6]  R. Zeimer,et al.  A fundus camera dedicated to the screening of diabetic retinopathy in the primary-care physician's office. , 2002, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[7]  M. Blumenkranz,et al.  The sensitivity and specificity of single-field nonmydriatic monochromatic digital fundus photography with remote image interpretation for diabetic retinopathy screening: a comparison with ophthalmoscopy and standardized mydriatic color photography. , 2002, American journal of ophthalmology.

[8]  P. L. Hildebrand,et al.  Clinical evaluation of patients with diabetic retinopathy: accuracy of the Inoveon diabetic retinopathy-3DT system. , 2002, Ophthalmology.

[9]  L. Aiello,et al.  USE OF JOSLIN VISION NETWORK DIGITAL-VIDEO NONMYDRIATIC RETINAL IMAGING TO ASSESS DIABETIC RETINOPATHY IN A CLINICAL PROGRAM , 2003, Retina.

[10]  M. Lawrence,et al.  The accuracy of digital-video retinal imaging to screen for diabetic retinopathy: an analysis of two digital-video retinal imaging systems using standard stereoscopic seven-field photography and dilated clinical examination as reference standards. , 2004, Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society.

[11]  Francis L. McVeigh,et al.  Telehealth practice recommendations for diabetic retinopathy. , 2004, Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association.

[12]  An evaluation of the change in activity and workload arising from diabetic ophthalmology referrals following the introduction of a community based digital retinal photographic screening programme , 2005, British Journal of Ophthalmology.

[13]  Andrew Ting,et al.  Web-based grading of compressed stereoscopic digital photography versus standard slide film photography for the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy. , 2007, Ophthalmology.

[14]  Cathy R. Taylor,et al.  Improving Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Ratios Using Telemedicine-Based Digital Retinal Imaging Technology , 2007, Diabetes Care.

[15]  Larry D Hubbard,et al.  Brightness, contrast, and color balance of digital versus film retinal images in the age-related eye disease study 2. , 2008, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  M. Blum,et al.  Digital fundus image grading with the non‐mydriatic VisucamPRO NM versus the FF450plus camera in diabetic retinopathy , 2007, Acta ophthalmologica.

[17]  Marie Carole Boucher,et al.  Teleophthalmology screening for diabetic retinopathy through mobile imaging units within Canada. , 2008, Canadian journal of ophthalmology. Journal canadien d'ophtalmologie.

[18]  A. Erginay,et al.  OPHDIAT: a telemedical network screening system for diabetic retinopathy in the Ile-de-France. , 2008, Diabetes & metabolism.

[19]  A. Avogaro,et al.  Screening for diabetic retinopathy: 1 and 3 nonmydriatic 45-degree digital fundus photographs vs 7 standard early treatment diabetic retinopathy study fields. , 2009, American journal of ophthalmology.

[20]  K. Mäkelä,et al.  Mobile digital fundus screening of type 2 diabetes patients in the Finnish county of South-Ostrobothnia , 2009, Journal of telemedicine and telecare.