A novel smartphone ophthalmic imaging adapter: User feasibility studies in Hyderabad, India
A novel smartphone ophthalmic imaging adapter: User feasibility studies in Hyderabad, India
复制标题
DOI：
10.4103/0301-4738.181742
复制
发表时间：
2016-03-01
影响因子：
3.1
通讯作者：
Chang, Robert T.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ludwig, Cassie A.;Murthy, Somasheila I.;Chang, Robert T.
研究目的：评价辅助医疗人员使用新型智能手机成像适配器系统（EyeGo，现称为Paxos Scope）捕获足够质量的图像以排除紧急眼部发现的能力。次要目的是评估图像采集期间的用户和患者体验、用户间再现性和主观图像质量。材料和方法：该系统使用与iPhone 5S耦合的微距透镜和间接检眼镜透镜捕获图像。我们对229名连续到L. V. Prasad眼科研究所，印度海得拉巴。主要结局指标为平均摄影质量（FOTO-ED研究1u 5量表，5最佳）。210名患者和8名用户完成了评估舒适度和易用性的调查。对于46名患者，两名用户依次对同一患者的眼睛进行成像。对于182名患者，将使用EyeGo系统拍摄的照片与现有临床摄像机拍摄的图像进行比较：BX 900裂隙灯与佳能EOS 40 D数码摄像机和FF 450 plus眼底摄像机与VISUPAC数字成像系统。由对诊断不知情的审查员对图像进行事后分级。结果：9名用户采集了229名患者的719张可用图像和253段视频。所有用户的平均图像质量>= 4.0/5.0（能够排除细微发现）。在5分Likert量表上，8/8名用户和189/210名患者对EyeGo器械感到舒适。对于由两名用户使用前路适配器成像的21名患者，加权为0.597（95%置信区间：0.389u0.806），表明再现性中等。EyeGo和现有的临床摄像机（92.6%前，84.4%后）之间的高水平的协议founded. Conclusion：新的，眼科成像系统是很容易学习的辅助眼科护理提供者，患者的耐受性良好，并捕捉高质量的图像的眼睛发现。
Aim of Study: To evaluate the ability of ancillary health staff to use a novel smartphone imaging adapter system (EyeGo, now known as Paxos Scope) to capture images of sufficient quality to exclude emergent eye findings. Secondary aims were to assess user and patient experiences during image acquisition, interuser reproducibility, and subjective image quality. Materials and Methods: The system captures images using a macro lens and an indirect ophthalmoscopy lens coupled with an iPhone 5S. We conducted a prospective cohort study of 229 consecutive patients presenting to L. V. Prasad Eye Institute, Hyderabad, India. Primary outcome measure was mean photographic quality (FOTO-ED study 1u5 scale, 5 best). 210 patients and eight users completed surveys assessing comfort and ease of use. For 46 patients, two users imaged the same patient's eyes sequentially. For 182 patients, photos taken with the EyeGo system were compared to images taken by existing clinic cameras: a BX 900 slit-lamp with a Canon EOS 40D Digital Camera and an FF 450 plus Fundus Camera with VISUPAC Digital Imaging System. Images were graded post hoc by a reviewer blinded to diagnosis. Results: Nine users acquired 719 useable images and 253 videos of 229 patients. Mean image quality was >= 4.0/5.0 (able to exclude subtle findings) for all users. 8/8 users and 189/210 patients surveyed were comfortable with the EyeGo device on a 5-point Likert scale. For 21 patients imaged with the anterior adapter by two users, a weighted of 0.597 (95% confidence interval: 0.389u0.806) indicated moderate reproducibility. High level of agreement between EyeGo and existing clinic cameras (92.6% anterior, 84.4% posterior) was found. Conclusion: The novel, ophthalmic imaging system is easily learned by ancillary eye care providers, well tolerated by patients, and captures high-quality images of eye findings.