Table 3.
Outcomes of clinical studies using portable retinal cameras for diabetic retinopathy screening
| Study | Camera | Ungradeable images | Mydriasis | Detection of DR | Standard for comparison | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | |||||
| Smartphone-based fundus cameras | ||||||
| Russo et al. [76] | D-Eye (D-Eyecare) | 3.75% | Yes | 75–89 | 93–100 | Dilated fundus examination |
| Toy et al. [74] | Paxos Scope (Verana Health) | 2% | Yes | 91 | 99 | Dilated fundus examination |
| Ryan et al. [75] | Unmodified smartphone with hand-held 20D lens | 1.8% | Yes | 50 | 94 | 7-field ETDRS fundus photos |
| Rajalakshmi et al. [77] | Fundus-on-phone (FOP, Remidio Innovative Solutions) | None | Yes | 92.7 | 98.4 | Zeiss FF450 Plus digital fundus camera |
| Dedicated portable nonmydriatic fundus cameras | ||||||
| Ting et al. [97] | Eyescan (OIS) | 8.5% | Yes | 93 | 98.2 | Dilated fundus examination |
| Zhang et al. [98] | Pictor Smartscope (Volk Optical) | 6–14% | No | 64–88 | 72–84 | Dilated fundus examination |
| Sengupta et al. [79] | Pictor Smartscope (Volk optical) | – | No | 88–93 | 84–90 | Dilated fundus examination |