全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Evaluation of Mobile Electronic Devices in Detecting Optic Disc and Visual Field Parameters in Patients with Glaucoma at a Tertiary Hospital in Northeastern Tanzania

DOI: 10.4236/ojoph.2020.103024, PP. 220-228

Keywords: Glaucoma, PEEK Smartphone, Contrast Sensitivity, Amsler Grid, Kilimanjaro

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

Background: Glaucoma is a serious public health problem since it causes visual impairment impacting social, mental and physical health of an individual. Diagnosis and management of glaucoma continue to be a challenge due to few qualified personnel and high cost of the equipment. The use of portable Eye Examination Kit such as Smartphone and tablets can be used in glaucoma screening for taking high-resolution fundus photos for optic disc and visual field parameters, respectively. This study was conducted to evaluate the applicability of mobile electronic device to detect optic disc and visual field parameters for glaucoma in a resource limited setting. Objective: To evaluate the applicability of mobile electronic devices to detect optic disc and visual field parameters for glaucoma. Methodology: Across-sectional study was conducted at KCMC Eye department from October 2018 to June 2019. Study included 140 participants attending eye clinic of which 67 had glaucoma and 73 without glaucoma. Clinical and socio-demographic data were collected using a structured questionnaire and analysed using Stata 15. Glaucoma examination was made on the right eye and photo comparison made between those with and without glaucoma. PEEK Smartphone fundus photo examination was compared with the gold standard machine (Slit Lamp Biomicroscopy), Amsler grid chart installed on a tablet (Microsoft surface, internal storage 256 GB, 2013) and contrast sensitivity compared with Humphrey field analyser (i series, model 740117434, Carl Zeiss Meditec). Results: The kappa (k) agreement between Slit lump biomicroscopy fundus view image and PEEK Smartphone concerning the optic disc measurement was 0.92 with sensitivity and specificity of 90.32% (95% CI: 80.12 - 96.37) and 93.59% (95% CI: 85.67 - 97.89) with a p < 0.001 respectively. An agreement between Amsler grid and Humphrey Field Analyser was 0.67 with sensitivity of 33.33% (95% CI: 20.76 - 47.92) and specificity of 86.52% (95% CI: 77.63 - 92.83) with a p < 0.005. An agreement for contrast sensitivity and Humphrey Field Analyser was 0.51 with sensitivity of 48.91% (95% CI: 38.3 - 59.56) and specificity of 54.17% (95% CI: 39.17 - 68.63) and p value of 0.729. Conclusion: PEEK Smartphone fundus image specificity was almost in perfect agreement compared with Amsler grid and Contrast sensitivity. The PEEK Smartphone fundus view optic disc parameter for vertical cup to disc ratio has a potential to enhance detection of glaucoma and thus improve its

References

[1]  Pascolini, D. and Mariotti, S.P.M. (2010) Global Estimates of Visual Impairment. British Journal Ophthalmology.
[2]  Kyari, F., et al. (2018) The Current Status of Glaucoma and Glaucoma Care in Sub-Saharan Africa. Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology, 7, 375-386.
[3]  Buhrmann, R.R., Quigley, H.A., Barron, Y., West, S.K., Oliva, M.S. and Mmbaga, B.B. (2000) Prevalence of Glaucoma in a Rural East African Population. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 41, 40-48.
[4]  Mohammadpour, M., et al. (2017) Smartphones, Tele-Ophthalmology, and Vision 2020. International Journal of Ophthalmology, 10, 1909-1918.
[5]  Medeiros, F. and Alencar, L. (2011) The Role of Standard Automated Perimetry and Newer Functional Methods for Glaucoma Diagnosis and Follow-Up. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology, 59, 53. https://doi.org/10.4103/0301-4738.73694
[6]  Hajian-Tilaki, K. (2014) Sample Size Estimation in Diagnostic Test Studies of Biomedical Informatics. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 48, 193-204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2014.02.013
[7]  Fellman, R., et al. (2011) Know the New Glaucoma Codes. EyeNet Magazine, 65-66.
http://www.aao.org/eyenet/article/know-new-glaucoma-staging-codes?october-2011
[8]  Susanna Jr., R. and Vessani, R.M. (2009) Staging Glaucoma Patient: Why and How? The Open Ophthalmology Journal, 3, 59-64.
https://doi.org/10.2174/1874364100903020059
[9]  Russo, A., et al. (2016) Comparison of Smartphone Ophthalmoscopy with Slit-Lamp Biomicroscopy for Grading Vertical Cup-to-Disc Ratio. Journal of Glaucoma, 25, 777-781. https://doi.org/10.1097/IJG.0000000000000499
[10]  Boonarpha, N., et al. (2018) Comparison of Optic Disc Images from Two Smartphone-Based Imaging Systems in Glaucoma Patients and Suspects. Ophthalmology Journal, 1, 1-7.
[11]  Raza, A.S., Cho, J., de Moraes, C.G.V., et al. (2011) Retinal Ganglion Cell Layer Thickness and Local Visual Field Sensitivity in Glaucoma. Archives of Ophthalmology, 129, 1529-1536. https://doi.org/10.1001/archophthalmol.2011.352
[12]  Fuertes, I., et al. (2016) Evaluation of Contrast Sensitivity, Chromatic Vision, and Reading Ability in Patients with Primary Open Angle Glaucoma. Journal of Ophthalmology, 2016, Article ID: 7074016. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/7074016
[13]  Temel, A. (2008) FACT Contrast Sensitivity as a Diagnostic Tool in Glaucoma FACT Contrast Sensitivity in Glaucoma. International Ophthalmology, 28, 407-412.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10792-007-9169-z
[14]  Su, D., et al. (2015) Efficacy of the Amsler Grid Test in Evaluating Glaucomatous Central Visual Field Defects. Ophthalmology, 123, 737-743.
[15]  Faes, L., et al. (2014) Diagnostic Accuracy of the Amsler Grid and the Preferential Hyperacuity Perimetry in the Screening of Patients with Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Eye, 28, 788-796.
https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2014.104

Full-Text

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133