title: Effect of mydriasis and different field strategies on digital image screening of diabetic eye disease.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effects of (1) mydriasis and (2) single versus three field photography on screening for diabetic eye disease using digital photography
  
  
  METHODS
  Slit lamp examination findings were compared to digital fundal photographs for the detection of any retinopathy and for referable retinopathy in 398 patients (794 eyes). A Topcon TRC-NW6S digital non-mydriatic fundus camera was used. Three photographic strategies were used: undilated single field, dilated single field, and dilated multiple fields. The photographs were presented in random order to one of two retinal screeners. For the single field photographs the screeners were masked to the use of mydriatics. In 13% of fundal photographs, grading was performed by both, rather than just one grader.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Mydriasis reduced the proportion of ungradable photographs from 26% to 5% (p<0.001). Neither mydriasis nor three field photography improved the sensitivity or specificity for the detection of any retinopathy or of referable retinopathy when compared with undilated single field photography. The sensitivity and specificity for detecting referable retinopathy using undilated single field photography was 77% (95% CI 71 to 84) and 95 % (95% CI 93 to 97) respectively. Using dilated single field photography the figures were 81% (95% CI 76 to 87) and 92% (95% CI 90 to 94) respectively. Using dilated three field photography the figures were 83% (95% CI 78 to 88) and 93% (95% CI 91 to 96) respectively. Intergrader reliability for the detection of referable retinopathy in gradable photographs was excellent (Kappa values 0.86-1.00).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Mydriasis reduces the technical failure rate. Mydriasis and the three field photography as used in this study do not increase the sensitivity or specificity of detecting diabetic retinopathy.
authors.affiliation: Department of Ophthalmology, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK.
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Murgatroyd
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Ellingford
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Cox
authors.forename: M
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Binnie
authors.forename: J D
authors.initials: JD
authors.lastname: Ellis
authors.forename: C J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: MacEwen
authors.forename: G P
authors.initials: GP
authors.lastname: Leese
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003930:Diabetic Retinopathy / Q000175:diagnosis*; D005260:Female; D005451:Fluorescein Angiography / Q000379:methods; D005584:Fovea Centralis; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D009898:Optic Disk; D010781:Photography / Q000379:methods*; D011680:Pupil / Q000502:physiology; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012171:Retinal Vessels / Q000473:pathology; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity