IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0179310.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Accuracy and reliability of retinal photo grading for diabetic retinopathy: Remote graders from a developing country and standard retinal photo grader in Australia

Author

Listed:
  • Fakir M Amirul Islam

Abstract

Background: To evaluate the accuracy and reliability of fundus retinal photos graded by local graders in Bangladesh with those graded by an expert at the Centre for Eye Research Australia (CERA) in the context of mass scale diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in Bangladesh. Methods: A population-based cross-sectional study of 3,104 adults identified 213 (7.2%) eligible patients with diabetes of age ≥ 40 years in 2012–2013. Retinal photographs were collected using a non-mydriatic digital fundus retinal camera and a two-field imaging protocol. The photos were graded by two remote graders (G1 and G2) who were trained by a retinal specialist (RS) in Bangladesh, by the RS himself, and by a Centre for Eye Research Australia (CERA) grader. The local graders up skilled their grading ability by comparing 30% of the photos graded by the CERA grader with their own grades. Learning from that exercise was applied to the remaining 70% of photos, which were re-graded. Reliability and accuracy of grading amongst the graders were reported using cross tabulation, inter- and intra-grader reliability, and with sensitivity and specificity. Results: Of 122 eyes from 61 patients, the mild (R1) DR was estimated to be 14 to 25%, pre-proliferative (R2) DR 4–8%, and proliferative (R3) DR 0.8 to 1.6%, whereas 25%, 8%, 18%, and 15% were found to be ungradable by CERA, RS, G1, and G2, respectively. Of 8 (6.6%) eyes identified as R2 by the CERA grader, 5 (63%), 3 (38%) and 3 (38%) were correctly classified as R2, whereas the rest were classified either as R1 or R3 but none were classified as no DR (R0) or ungradable by the RS, G1 and G2, respectively. After getting experience reviewing the 30% test set graded by the CERA grader, the local graders graded moderate and severe DR with 100% accuracy. After excluding ungradable photos, the sensitivity (specificity) relative to the CERA grader was 82% (88%) before and 80% (93%) after training for G1 and 56% (87%) before and 77% (90%) after training for G2. In case of maculopathy, the CERA grader reported 11.2% eyes with maculopathy, which included 100% of the 4.9% by RS, 6.6% by G1, and 7.4% by G2. Conclusions: Local graders in Bangladesh are able to grade retinal photos with high accuracy if the DR is at least of a moderate level. With appropriate training and experience, local graders have the ability to contribute significantly to the grading of millions of retinal photos, which required grading in resource- poor countries.

Suggested Citation

  • Fakir M Amirul Islam, 2017. "Accuracy and reliability of retinal photo grading for diabetic retinopathy: Remote graders from a developing country and standard retinal photo grader in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-12, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0179310
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0179310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179310
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0179310&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0179310?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0179310. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.