The use of smartphones to detect diabetic retinopathy: a scoping review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies
File(s)Tan_The_use_of_smartphones_JMIR.pdf (1.45 MB)
Published version
Author(s)
Han, Tan Choon
Kyaw, Bhone Myint
Smith, Helen
Tan, Colin
Tudor Car, Lorainne
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR), a common complication of diabetes mellitus, is the leading cause of impaired vision in adults worldwide. Smartphones ophthalmoscopy involves using a smartphone camera for digital retinal imaging. Utilizing smartphones to detect DR is potentially more affordable, accessible and easier to use than conventional methods.
Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of various smartphone ophthalmoscopy approaches for detecting DR in diabetic patients.
Methods: We performed an electronic search on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library for literature published from January 2000 to November 2018. We included studies involving diabetic patients which compared the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone ophthalmoscopy for detecting DR, to an accurate or commonly-employed reference standard, e.g. indirect ophthalmoscopy, slit-lamp biomicroscopy and tabletop fundus photography. Two reviewers independently screened studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool, with disagreements resolved via consensus. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using the random-effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. This review is reported in line with the PRISMA-DTA guidelines.
Results: Nine studies involving 1430 participants were included. Most were of high quality, except one study with limited applicability due to its reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting: any DR was 87% (95% CI 74%–94%) and 94% (81%–98%); mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR) was 39% (10%–79%) and 95% (91%–98%); moderate NPDR was 71% (57%–81%) and 95% (88%–98%); severe NPDR was 80% (49%–94%) and 97% (88%–99%); PDR was 92% (79%–97%) and 99% (96%–99%); diabetic macular edema was 79% (63%–89%) and 93% (82%–97%); and referral-warranted DR was 91% (86%–94%) and 89% (56%–98%). The area under SROC curve ranged from 0.879–0.979. The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 11.3–1225.
Conclusion: We found heterogeneous evidence showing smartphone ophthalmoscopy performs well in detecting DR. The diagnostic accuracy for PDR was highest. Future studies should standardize reference standards and classification criteria, and evaluate other available forms of smartphone ophthalmoscopy in primary care settings.
Objective: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of various smartphone ophthalmoscopy approaches for detecting DR in diabetic patients.
Methods: We performed an electronic search on MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library for literature published from January 2000 to November 2018. We included studies involving diabetic patients which compared the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone ophthalmoscopy for detecting DR, to an accurate or commonly-employed reference standard, e.g. indirect ophthalmoscopy, slit-lamp biomicroscopy and tabletop fundus photography. Two reviewers independently screened studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies using the QUADAS-2 tool, with disagreements resolved via consensus. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using the random-effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. This review is reported in line with the PRISMA-DTA guidelines.
Results: Nine studies involving 1430 participants were included. Most were of high quality, except one study with limited applicability due to its reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting: any DR was 87% (95% CI 74%–94%) and 94% (81%–98%); mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR) was 39% (10%–79%) and 95% (91%–98%); moderate NPDR was 71% (57%–81%) and 95% (88%–98%); severe NPDR was 80% (49%–94%) and 97% (88%–99%); PDR was 92% (79%–97%) and 99% (96%–99%); diabetic macular edema was 79% (63%–89%) and 93% (82%–97%); and referral-warranted DR was 91% (86%–94%) and 89% (56%–98%). The area under SROC curve ranged from 0.879–0.979. The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 11.3–1225.
Conclusion: We found heterogeneous evidence showing smartphone ophthalmoscopy performs well in detecting DR. The diagnostic accuracy for PDR was highest. Future studies should standardize reference standards and classification criteria, and evaluate other available forms of smartphone ophthalmoscopy in primary care settings.
Date Issued
2020-05-15
Date Acceptance
2020-02-17
Citation
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 2020, 22 (5)
ISSN
1438-8871
Publisher
JMIR Publications
Journal / Book Title
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Volume
22
Issue
5
Copyright Statement
©Choon Han Tan, Bhone Myint Kyaw, Helen Smith, Colin S Tan, Lorainne Tudor Car. Originally published in the Journal of
Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 15.05.2020. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is
properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this
copyright and license information must be included.
Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 15.05.2020. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research, is
properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.jmir.org/, as well as this
copyright and license information must be included.
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Health Care Sciences & Services
Medical Informatics
diabetic retinopathy
smartphone
mobile phone
ophthalmoscopy
artificial intelligence
telemedicine
FUNDUS PHOTOGRAPHY
MANAGEMENT
SPECIFICITY
SENSITIVITY
ADAPTER
artificial intelligence
diabetic retinopathy
mobile phone
ophthalmoscopy
smartphone
telemedicine
08 Information and Computing Sciences
11 Medical and Health Sciences
17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences
Medical Informatics
Publication Status
Published
Article Number
ARTN e16658