The scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2
Purpose: To determine if the Eidon white light 60-degree field Scanning Confocal Ophthalmoscope (SCO) camera was safe to use with staged mydriasis in a Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP). Methods: The trial participants were recruited from people with diabetes attending appointments in DESP or...
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Journal article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Springer Nature [academic journals on nature.com]
2024
|
| _version_ | 1817932529578016768 |
|---|---|
| author | Scanlon, PH Gruszka-Goh, M Javed, U Vukic, A Hapeshi, J Chave, S Galsworthy, P Vallance, S Aldington, SJ |
| author_facet | Scanlon, PH Gruszka-Goh, M Javed, U Vukic, A Hapeshi, J Chave, S Galsworthy, P Vallance, S Aldington, SJ |
| author_sort | Scanlon, PH |
| collection | OXFORD |
| description | Purpose: To determine if the Eidon white light 60-degree field Scanning Confocal Ophthalmoscope (SCO) camera was safe to use with staged mydriasis in a Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP). Methods: The trial participants were recruited from people with diabetes attending appointments in DESP or Virtual Eye clinics for post-Covid delayed hospital appointments. Using staged mydriasis, the SCO images were taken before the pupils were dilated and compared to two-field 45 degrees mydriatic digital photography (the reference standard). Mydriatic SCO images were only compared to the reference standard if the non-mydriatic SCO images were unassessable. Results: 1050 patients were recruited, 35 individuals were withdrawn, the majority (18) due to an imaging protocol deviation leaving 1015 individuals (2029 eyes). Using staged mydriasis, the sensitivity and specificity for any retinopathy was 97.5% (95% CI: 96.4–98.4%) and 82.3% (95% CI: 79.6–84.7%) respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for referable retinopathy was 92.7% (95% CI: 89.9–94.9%) and 85.4% (95% CI: 83.6–87.2%) respectively. The total number of eyes that were unassessable with the Eidon without mydriasis was 85/2029 (4.2%), and after mydriasis was 34/2029 (1.7%) and, with the reference standard, 34/2029 (1.7% - not always the same images) were unassessable. Conclusions: This study provides promising early results of the performance of the Eidon camera using staged mydriasis in a DESP which needs further evidence from a non-Caucasian population and from cost-effectiveness analyses. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-09T03:39:22Z |
| format | Journal article |
| id | oxford-uuid:62a31a27-8a04-49c1-91d1-3dd977c199b3 |
| institution | University of Oxford |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-09T03:39:22Z |
| publishDate | 2024 |
| publisher | Springer Nature [academic journals on nature.com] |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | oxford-uuid:62a31a27-8a04-49c1-91d1-3dd977c199b32024-12-06T20:11:50ZThe scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2Journal articlehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_dcae04bcuuid:62a31a27-8a04-49c1-91d1-3dd977c199b3EnglishJisc Publications RouterSpringer Nature [academic journals on nature.com]2024Scanlon, PHGruszka-Goh, MJaved, UVukic, AHapeshi, JChave, SGalsworthy, PVallance, SAldington, SJPurpose: To determine if the Eidon white light 60-degree field Scanning Confocal Ophthalmoscope (SCO) camera was safe to use with staged mydriasis in a Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP). Methods: The trial participants were recruited from people with diabetes attending appointments in DESP or Virtual Eye clinics for post-Covid delayed hospital appointments. Using staged mydriasis, the SCO images were taken before the pupils were dilated and compared to two-field 45 degrees mydriatic digital photography (the reference standard). Mydriatic SCO images were only compared to the reference standard if the non-mydriatic SCO images were unassessable. Results: 1050 patients were recruited, 35 individuals were withdrawn, the majority (18) due to an imaging protocol deviation leaving 1015 individuals (2029 eyes). Using staged mydriasis, the sensitivity and specificity for any retinopathy was 97.5% (95% CI: 96.4–98.4%) and 82.3% (95% CI: 79.6–84.7%) respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for referable retinopathy was 92.7% (95% CI: 89.9–94.9%) and 85.4% (95% CI: 83.6–87.2%) respectively. The total number of eyes that were unassessable with the Eidon without mydriasis was 85/2029 (4.2%), and after mydriasis was 34/2029 (1.7%) and, with the reference standard, 34/2029 (1.7% - not always the same images) were unassessable. Conclusions: This study provides promising early results of the performance of the Eidon camera using staged mydriasis in a DESP which needs further evidence from a non-Caucasian population and from cost-effectiveness analyses. |
| spellingShingle | Scanlon, PH Gruszka-Goh, M Javed, U Vukic, A Hapeshi, J Chave, S Galsworthy, P Vallance, S Aldington, SJ The scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2 |
| title | The scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2 |
| title_full | The scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2 |
| title_fullStr | The scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2 |
| title_full_unstemmed | The scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2 |
| title_short | The scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2 |
| title_sort | scanning confocal ophthalmoscopy for diabetic eye screening concordia study paper 2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT scanlonph thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT gruszkagohm thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT javedu thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT vukica thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT hapeshij thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT chaves thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT galsworthyp thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT vallances thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT aldingtonsj thescanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT scanlonph scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT gruszkagohm scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT javedu scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT vukica scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT hapeshij scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT chaves scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT galsworthyp scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT vallances scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 AT aldingtonsj scanningconfocalophthalmoscopyfordiabeticeyescreeningconcordiastudypaper2 |