IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pdig00/0000649.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic accuracy of a smartphone-based device (VistaView) for detection of diabetic retinopathy: A prospective study

Author

Listed:
  • Rida Shahzad
  • Arshad Mehmood
  • Danish Shabbir
  • M A Rehman Siddiqui

Abstract

Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness globally. The gold standard for DR screening is stereoscopic colour fundus photography with tabletop cameras. VistaView is a novel smartphone-based retinal camera which offers mydriatic retinal imaging. This study compares the diagnostic accuracy of the smartphone-based VistaView camera compared to a traditional desk mounted fundus camera (Triton Topcon). We also compare the agreement between graders for DR screening between VistaView images and Topcon images. Methodology: This prospective study took place between December 2021 and June 2022 in Pakistan. Consecutive diabetic patients were imaged following mydriasis using both VistaView and Topcon cameras at the same sitting. All images were graded independently by two graders based on the International Classification of Diabetic Retinopathy (ICDR) criteria. Individual grades were assigned for severity of DR and maculopathy in each image. Diagnostic accuracy was calculated using the Topcon camera as the gold standard. Agreement between graders for each device was calculated as intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) (95% CI) and Cohen’s weighted kappa (k). Principal findings: A total of 1428 images were available from 371 patients with both cameras. After excluding ungradable images, a total of 1231 images were graded. The sensitivity of VistaView for any DR was 69.9% (95% CI 62.2–76.6%) while the specificity was 92.9% (95% CI 89.9–95.1%), and PPV and NPV were 80.5% (95% CI 73–86.4%) and 88.1% (95% CI 84.5–90.9) respectively. The sensitivity of VistaView for RDR was 69.7% (95% CI 61.7–76.8%) while the specificity was 94.2% (95% CI 91.3–96.1%), and PPV and NPV were 81.5% (95% CI 73.6–87.6%) and 89.4% (95% CI 86–92%) respectively. The sensitivity for detecting maculopathy in VistaView was 71.2% (95% CI 62.8–78.4%), while the specificity was 86.4% (82.6–89.4%). The PPV and NPV of detecting maculopathy were 63% (95% CI 54.9–70.5%) and 90.1% (95% CI 86.8–92.9%) respectively. For VistaView, the ICC of DR grades was 78% (95% CI, 75–82%) between the two graders and that of maculopathy grades was 66% (95% CI, 59–71%). The Cohen’s kappa for retinopathy grades of VistaView images was 0.61 (95% CI, 0.55–0.67, p

Suggested Citation

  • Rida Shahzad & Arshad Mehmood & Danish Shabbir & M A Rehman Siddiqui, 2024. "Diagnostic accuracy of a smartphone-based device (VistaView) for detection of diabetic retinopathy: A prospective study," PLOS Digital Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-12, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000649
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000649
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pdig.0000649&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pdig.0000649?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sangeetha Srinivasan & Sharan Shetty & Viswanathan Natarajan & Tarun Sharma & Rajiv Raman, 2016. "Development and Validation of a Diabetic Retinopathy Referral Algorithm Based on Single-Field Fundus Photography," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-10, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      More about this item

      Statistics

      Access and download statistics

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pdig00:0000649. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: digitalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/digitalhealth .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.