Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Image quality comparison of AirDoc portable retina camera versus eyer in a diabetic retinopathy screening program.
Brant, Rodrigo; Nakayama, Luis Filipe; de Oliveira, Talita Virgínia Fernandes; de Oliveira, Juliana Angelica Estevão; Ribeiro, Lucas Zago; Richter, Gabriela Dalmedico; Rodacki, Rafael; Penha, Fernando Marcondes.
Afiliación
  • Brant R; Ophthalmology and Visual Science Department, Sao Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil. rodrigo.fernandes@med.usc.edu.
  • Nakayama LF; Keck School of Medicine, Roski Eye Institute, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA. rodrigo.fernandes@med.usc.edu.
  • de Oliveira TVF; Ophthalmology and Visual Science Department, Sao Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
  • de Oliveira JAE; Laboratory for Computational Physiology, Massachusetts Insitute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA.
  • Ribeiro LZ; Ophthalmology and Visual Science Department, Sao Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
  • Richter GD; Ophthalmology and Visual Science Department, Sao Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
  • Rodacki R; Ophthalmology and Visual Science Department, Sao Paulo Federal University, Sao Paulo, SP, Brazil.
  • Penha FM; Fundação Universidade Regional de Blumenau, Blumenau, SC, Brazil.
Int J Retina Vitreous ; 10(1): 43, 2024 Jun 14.
Article en En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38877585
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) stands as the foremost cause of preventable blindness in adults. Despite efforts to expand DR screening coverage in the Brazilian public healthcare system, challenges persist due to various factors including social, medical, and financial constraints. Our objective was to evaluate the quality of images obtained with the AirDoc, a novel device, compared to Eyer portable camera which has already been clinically validated.

METHODS:

Images were captured by two portable retinal devices AirDoc and Eyer. The included patients had their fundus images obtained in a screening program conducted in Blumenau, Santa Catarina. Two retina specialists independently assessed image's quality. A comparison was performed between both devices regarding image quality and the presence of artifacts.

RESULTS:

The analysis included 129 patients (mean age of 61 years), with 29 (43.28%) male and an average disease duration of 11.1 ± 8 years. In Ardoc, 21 (16.28%) images were classified as poor quality, with 88 (68%) presenting artifacts; in Eyer, 4 (3.1%) images were classified as poor quality, with 94 (72.87%) presenting artifacts.

CONCLUSIONS:

Although both Eyer and AirDoc devices show potential as screening tools, the AirDoc images displayed higher rates of ungradable and low-quality images, that may directly affect the DR and DME grading. We must acknowledge the limitations of our study, including the relatively small sample size. Therefore, the interpretations of our analyses should be approached with caution, and further investigations with larger patient cohorts are warranted to validate our findings.
Palabras clave
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Int J Retina Vitreous Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil Pais de publicación: Reino Unido
Texto completo
Añadir a Mi BVS
Imprimir
XML
PubMed Links
Buscar en Google

Texto completo: 1 Colección: 01-internacional Base de datos: MEDLINE Idioma: En Revista: Int J Retina Vitreous Año: 2024 Tipo del documento: Article País de afiliación: Brasil Pais de publicación: Reino Unido