4.7 Article

Software for reading and grading diabetic retinopathy - Aravind Diabetic Retinopathy Screening 3.0

Journal

DIABETES CARE
Volume 30, Issue 9, Pages 2302-2306

Publisher

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/dc07-0225

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVE - To evaluate the validity and reproducibility of software for reading digital images and grading diabetic retinopathy. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - A prospective, comparative observational study was conducted on a series of patients with type 2 diabetes who presented at the retina clinic of a tertiary care center in India. A total of 210 eyes of 105 patients were allocated to one of three ophthalmologists, who performed dilated indirect and direct ophthalmoscopy and subsequently assessed the digital images of the same group of patients who were masked to the patient's identity. The interobserver and intertest agreement between clinical assessments and grading of diabetic retinopathy using the software was estimated. RESULTS - Moderate nonproliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) was most frequently diagnosed, both clinically and on evaluating digital images. The overall agreement between the clinical grading of diabetic retinopathy and the grading of images was 81.3% (kappa = 0.69, SE 0.04, P < 0.0001); there was good agreement (81.3%) for NPDR (kappa = 0.61, SE 0.05, P < 0.0001), but agreement was not as good (54.6%) for proliferative diabetic retinopathy (kappa = 0.29, SE 0.11, P = 0.005). Clinically significant macular edema was diagnosed in 33.3% (70 of 210) of eyes clinically and in 40.2% (84 of 209) of eyes by grading images, and there was good agreement (89.5%) between the two (kappa = 0.77, SE 0.07, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS - Aravind Diabetic Retinopathy Screening 3.0 is a simple and valid tool to assist in the detection of sight-threatening retinopathy and could supplement dilated fundus examinations by ophthalmologists on patients to detect diabetic retinopathy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available