Image quality comparison of AirDoc portable retina camera versus eyer in a diabetic retinopathy screening program
Name
40942_2024_Article_559.pdf
Size
1.12 MB
Format
Adobe PDF
Checksum (MD5)
dcd7fc2f37623ea4c0e248117298d625
Author(s)
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
Date Issued
June 14, 2024
Journal
International Journal of Retina and Vitreous
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Citation
Brant, R., Nakayama, L.F., de Oliveira, T.V.F. et al. Image quality comparison of AirDoc portable retina camera versus eyer in a diabetic retinopathy screening program. Int J Retin Vitr 10, 43 (2024).
Version
Final published version
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.
MIT Department
Harvard--MIT Program in Health Sciences and Technology. Laboratory for Computational Physiology
Terms of Use
Creative Commons Attribution
Persistent DSpace Link
DOI of Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40942-024-00559-z
