Photoscreening for diabetic retinopathy: a comparison of image quality between film photography and digital imaging

Purpose: Retinal images from patients attending an urban screening centre before and after the transition from film photography to digital image acquisition were analysed for quality of image. Methods: A total of 1946 diabetic patients, aged 12−92 years (mean 55.6 ± 14.88 years), were included in th...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical & experimental ophthalmology 2004-08, Vol.32 (4), p.393-396
Main Authors: Klais, Christina MC, Grupchev, Ivan D, McGhee, Charles NJ, Donaldson, Mark L
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Child
diabetic retinopathy
Diabetic Retinopathy - diagnosis
Diagnostic Techniques, Ophthalmological - standards
digital
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Photography - instrumentation
Photography - methods
Photography - standards
photoscreening
quality of images
Retrospective Studies
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose: Retinal images from patients attending an urban screening centre before and after the transition from film photography to digital image acquisition were analysed for quality of image. Methods: A total of 1946 diabetic patients, aged 12−92 years (mean 55.6 ± 14.88 years), were included in this retrospective study of retinal screening techniques. Each imaging group was subdivided into age‐matched groups. In all subjects pupils were pharmacologically dilated before photography. The images were reviewed by the same three experienced observers and graded at the time of screening from grade 1 (excellent quality) to grade 4 (unreadable). Results: Of 938 patients in the film group, 31.3% had excellent images, 38.2% good, 22.7% poor and 7.8% were unreadable. Of the 1008 patients in the digital imaging group, 25.3% had excellent images, 46.3% good, 14.6% poor and 13.8% were unreadable. A significant difference was observed in patients over 65 years of age who exhibited a threefold increase in failure rate with digital imaging (33.7% v 11.3%)(P 
ISSN:1442-6404
1442-9071
DOI:10.1111/j.1442-9071.2004.00844.x