Quality and Diagnostic Utility of Mydriatic Smartphone Photography: The Smartphone Ophthalmoscopy Reliability Trial
Quality and Diagnostic Utility of Mydriatic Smartphone Photography: The Smartphone Ophthalmoscopy Reliability Trial
复制标题
DOI：
10.3928/23258160-20150610-06
复制
发表时间：
2015-06-01
影响因子：
1
通讯作者：
Spirn, Marc J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Adam, Murtaza K.;Brady, Christopher J.;Spirn, Marc J.
背景和目的：建立散瞳智能手机眼底镜检查（SO）眼底图像的质量和诊断效用相比，眼底相机（FC）images.Patients和方法：在这个前瞻性的，横断面研究，94例连续患者在城市眼科急诊室进行SO和FC眼底成像通过三个研究组之一：医学生1（MS 1），医学生2（MS 2），眼科居民（OR）。188只眼的图像由两名蒙眼的评审员进行整体质量分级，观察到的关键眼底检查结果与散瞳眼底检查documents.Results进行比较：OR组的SO图像质量高于MS 1和MS 2组（P <0.017）。摄影师之间的FC图像质量无差异（均P > 0.328）。在OR组中，SO图像检出了74.3%的关键眼底病变，而FC图像检出了77.1%的关键眼底病变。结论：SO产生的眼底图像的质量和诊断效用接近传统FC照片。
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Establish quality and diagnostic utility of mydriatic smartphone ophthalmoscopy (SO) fundus images compared to fundus camera (FC) images.PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional study, 94 consecutive patients in an urban eye emergency department underwent SO and FC fundus imaging via one of three study arms: medical student 1 (MS1), medical student 2 (MS2), and ophthalmology resident (OR). Images of 188 eyes were graded for overall quality by two masked reviewers, and observed critical fundus findings were compared to dilated fundus examination documentation.RESULTS: SO images were higher quality in the OR arm than in the MS1 and MS2 arms (P < .017). There were no differences in FC image quality between photographers (all P > .328). In the OR arm, SO images detected 74.3% of critical fundus findings, whereas FC images detected 77.1%.CONCLUSION: SO produces fundus images approaching the quality and diagnostic utility of traditional FC photographs.