BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Establish quality and diagnostic utility of mydriatic smartphone ophthalmoscopy (SO) fundus images compared to fundus camera (FC) images. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this prospective, cross-sectional study, 94 consecutive patients in an urban eye emergency department underwent SO and FC fundus imaging via one of three study arms: medical student 1 (MS1), medical student 2 (MS2), and ophthalmology resident (OR). Images of 188 eyes were graded for overall quality by two masked reviewers, and observed critical fundus findings were compared to dilated fundus examination documentation. RESULTS: SO images were higher quality in the OR arm than in the MS1 and MS2 arms (P < .017). There were no differences in FC image quality between photographers (all P > .328). In the OR arm, SO images detected 74.3% of critical fundus findings, whereas FC images detected 77.1%. CONCLUSION: SO produces fundus images approaching the quality and diagnostic utility of traditional FC photographs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adam et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: