IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0189854.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sensitivity and specificity of automated analysis of single-field non-mydriatic fundus photographs by Bosch DR Algorithm—Comparison with mydriatic fundus photography (ETDRS) for screening in undiagnosed diabetic retinopathy

Author

Listed:
  • Pritam Bawankar
  • Nita Shanbhag
  • S Smitha K.
  • Bodhraj Dhawan
  • Aratee Palsule
  • Devesh Kumar
  • Shailja Chandel
  • Suneet Sood

Abstract

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness among working-age adults. Early diagnosis through effective screening programs is likely to improve vision outcomes. The ETDRS seven-standard-field 35-mm stereoscopic color retinal imaging (ETDRS) of the dilated eye is elaborate and requires mydriasis, and is unsuitable for screening. We evaluated an image analysis application for the automated diagnosis of DR from non-mydriatic single-field images. Patients suffering from diabetes for at least 5 years were included if they were 18 years or older. Patients already diagnosed with DR were excluded. Physiologic mydriasis was achieved by placing the subjects in a dark room. Images were captured using a Bosch Mobile Eye Care fundus camera. The images were analyzed by the Retinal Imaging Bosch DR Algorithm for the diagnosis of DR. All subjects also subsequently underwent pharmacological mydriasis and ETDRS imaging. Non-mydriatic and mydriatic images were read by ophthalmologists. The ETDRS readings were used as the gold standard for calculating the sensitivity and specificity for the software. 564 consecutive subjects (1128 eyes) were recruited from six centers in India. Each subject was evaluated at a single outpatient visit. Forty-four of 1128 images (3.9%) could not be read by the algorithm, and were categorized as inconclusive. In four subjects, neither eye provided an acceptable image: these four subjects were excluded from the analysis. This left 560 subjects for analysis (1084 eyes). The algorithm correctly diagnosed 531 of 560 cases. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were 91%, 97%, 94%, and 95% respectively. The Bosch DR Algorithm shows favorable sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing DR from non-mydriatic images, and can greatly simplify screening for DR. This also has major implications for telemedicine in the use of screening for retinopathy in patients with diabetes mellitus.

Suggested Citation

  • Pritam Bawankar & Nita Shanbhag & S Smitha K. & Bodhraj Dhawan & Aratee Palsule & Devesh Kumar & Shailja Chandel & Suneet Sood, 2017. "Sensitivity and specificity of automated analysis of single-field non-mydriatic fundus photographs by Bosch DR Algorithm—Comparison with mydriatic fundus photography (ETDRS) for screening in undiagnos," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0189854
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0189854
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189854
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0189854&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0189854?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:pone00:0189854. 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.