Update on Screening for Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy Review Article Ophthalmic Res 2019;62:218–224 Update on Screening for Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy Peter H. Scanlon a–d a Clinical Director English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme, Cheltenham, UK; b Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cheltenham, UK; c Nuffield Department of Clinical Neuroscience, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; d University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK Received: February 27, 2019 Accepted after revision: March 6, 2019 Published online: May 27, 2019 Peter H. Scanlon Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Department of Ophthalmology Cheltenham General Hospital, GRRG Office above Oakley Ward Sandford Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL53 7AN (UK) E-Mail p.scanlon @ nhs.net © 2019 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel E-Mail karger@karger.com www.karger.com/ore DOI: 10.1159/000499539 Keywords Retinopathy · Retinal screening · Imaging · Sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy · Visual loss Abstract Purpose: The aim of this article was to describe recent advanc- es in the use of new technology in diabetic retinopathy screen- ing by looking at studies that assessed the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these technologies. Methods: The author conducts an ongoing search for articles relating to screening or management of diabetic retinopathy utilising Zetoc with key- words and contents page lists from relevant journals. Results: The areas discussed in this article are reference standards, alter- natives to digital photography, area of retina covered by the screening method, size of the device and hand-held cameras, mydriasis versus non-mydriasis or a combination, measure- ment of distance visual acuity, grading of images, use of auto- mated grading analysis and cost-effectiveness of the new tech- nologies. Conclusions: There have been many recent advances in technology that may be adopted in the future by screening programmes for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy but each device will need to demonstrate effectiveness and cost- effectiveness before more widespread adoption. © 2019 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel Introduction The Wilson and Junger criteria, which are the 1968 principles [1] applied by the World Health Organisation, have formed the basis of development of screening pro- grammes and required an evidence base which I adapted [2] for sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR): 1. STDR is an important public health problem [3, 4] 2. The incidence of STDR is going to remain the same or become an even greater public health problem [5, 6] 3. STDR has a recognisable latent or early symptomatic stage [7–9] 4. Treatment for STDR is effective and agreed upon uni- versally Diabetic retinopathy (DR) can be prevented or the rate of deterioration reduced by improved control of blood glucose [10–12] and blood pressure [13, 14]. Laser treat- ment is effective [15, 16], and vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors can improve the results of treatment in diabetic maculopathy [17, 18] and in some cases of pro- liferative DR [19, 20]. In this article I have concentrated on reviewing the up- dates in relation to the final two criteria: This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY- NC-ND) (http://www.karger.com/Services/OpenAccessLicense). Usage and distribution for commercial purposes as well as any dis- tribution of modified material requires written permission. Update on Screening for STDR 219Ophthalmic Res 2019;62:218–224 DOI: 10.1159/000499539 5. The test – a suitable and reliable screening test is avail- able, acceptable to both health care professionals and (more importantly) to the public 6. Cost-effectiveness – the costs of screening and effec- tive treatment of STDR are balanced economically in relation to total expenditure on health care – including the consequences of leaving the disease untreated Methodology The review of the literature relating to screening for DR has been ongoing since March 2000. The methodology involves a search technique for articles relating to screening or management of DR utilising Zetoc (http://zetoc.jisc.ac.uk/), which is a compre- hensive research database, giving you access to over 34,500 jour- nals and more than 55 million article citations and conference pa- pers through the British Library’s electronic table of contents cov- ering 1993 to the present day and is updated daily. Subject title keywords are searched daily using 21 different combinations (e.g., “retinopathy” or “digital” and “imaging” and “eye” in title), and contents page lists from 28 journals are reviewed monthly. Articles of interest identified with this search strategy were sourced from online electronic journal resources (e.g., Open Athens [21] or the Royal Society of Medicine [22]). Results The Test Reference Standards for Digital Photographic and Other Screening Methods There are two accepted reference standards to com- pare with any new screening methodology. (a) 7-field (30-degree) stereo photography is consid- ered the best reference standard. The advantage of this reference standard is the area of retina covered and the detailed grading classification [23] which has been developed for this standard. The disad- vantage is that the unassessable image rate is at 10% in one report from the Wisconsin Epidemiological Study of Dia- betic Retinopathy [24] and, in many studies, not reported so is likely higher than that rate. (b) Slit lamp biomicroscopy by an ophthalmologist is another accepted reference standard, although it is prefer- able with this methodology to use one or a small number of retinal specialists. The studies demonstrate significant vari- ation compared to 7-field stereophotography with some studies in which the ophthalmologists performed poorly [25, 26], and others with better results [27, 28]. Gangaputra et al. [29] compared evaluation by clinical examination with image grading at a reading centre for the classification of DR and diabetic macular oedema and concluded that the results support the use of clinical information for defining broad severity categories but not for documenting small- to-moderate changes in DR over time. Gangaputra et al. [30] also compared 35-mm film with digital photography and found that agreement between film and digital images was substantial to almost perfect for DR severity level and moderate to substantial for dia- betic macular oedema and clinically significant macular oedema severity levels, respectively. The study concluded that replacement of film fundus images with digital im- ages for DR severity level should not adversely affect clin- ical trial quality. The “Exeter Standards,” which were a consensus view formed at a meeting [31] in Exeter in the UK in 1988, formed the basis for a publication [32] for an acceptable method for use in a systematic screening programme for DR in the UK, which was adopted in the planning [33] of the English NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme. The Exeter Standards recommended that a screening test for STDR should achieve a minimum sensitivity of 80% and a minimum specificity of 95%. A systematic review by Piyasena et al. [34] found that both mydriatic and non-mydriatic digital imaging meth- ods generate a satisfactory level of sensitivity. The mean proportion of ungradable images in non-mydriatic meth- ods was 18.4% (CI 13.6–23.3%) and for the mydriatic method 6.2% (CI 1.7–10.8%) and, once these were ex- cluded from analysis: (a) the 1-field non-mydriatic strategy gave summary estimates of sensitivity of 78% (CI 76–80%) and of speci- ficity of 91% (CI 90–92%); the 2-field non-mydriatic strategy gave summary estimates of sensitivity of 91% (95% CI 90–93%) and of specificity of 94% (CI 93–95%); (b) the 1-field mydriatic strategy gave summary esti- mates of sensitivity of 80% (CI 77–82%) and of specificity of 93% (CI 92–94%); the 2-field mydriatic strategy gave summary estimates of sensitivity of 85% (95% CI 84– 87%) and of specificity of 82% (95% CI 81–83%). The article concluded that, overall, there was no differ- ence in sensitivity between non-mydriatic and mydriatic methods (86%, 95% CI 85–87%) after exclusion of un- gradable images. In the literature, studies vary as to whether they count ungradable images as test positive, and it is more likely that a study will achieve the 95% specificity if they do not count ungradable images as test positive. Alternatives to Digital Photography Goh et al. [35] produced a comprehensive review of ret- inal imaging techniques for DR screening. The most excit- ScanlonOphthalmic Res 2019;62:218–224220 DOI: 10.1159/000499539 ing new technologies that may be used in screening in the future, providing they can be shown to be effective and cost- effective, are the scanning confocal ophthalmoscopes that use either laser light or light-emitting diodes (LED). Exam- ples of 4 CE-marked scanning confocal ophthalmoscopes that are currently commercially available are discussed: The Optos California which is described as ultrawide- field imaging incorporates low-powered laser wave- lengths in red (635 nm), green (532 nm) and blue (488 nm) that scan simultaneously and produce a composite image that joins the 3 wavelengths of light into a false- colour image. In 2016, Silva et al. [36] compared the ef- ficiency of non-mydriatic ultrawide-field imaging and non-mydriatic fundus photography in a DR ocular tele- health programme. The Heidelberg Spectralis OCT2 with multicolour functionality also uses three laser wavelengths, blue (488 nm), green (515 nm) and infrared reflectance (820 nm), to simultaneously capture a composite false-colour image. The Eidon confocal scanner (Centervue, Padova, Ita- ly) combines confocal imaging with natural white-light illumination to provide a true-colour image using a white LED (440–650 nm). The Zeiss Clarus 500 uses red (585–640 nm), green (500–585 nm) and blue (435–500 nm) LEDs to capture a composite image. There have not yet been any major studies published using any of these imaging techniques in a DR screening setting. The Area of Retina Covered by the Screening Method The original 35-mm film fundus cameras that were used for 7-field stereophotography had 30-degree fields. In 1989, Moss et al. [24] demonstrated that for 8 retinop- athy levels, the rate of agreement with 7 stereoscopic fields ranges from 80% for two 30-degree stereo fields to 91% for four 30-degree stereo fields. The non-mydriatic digital fundus cameras that are widely used in screening programmes, whether or not the patient’s eyes are dilated, usually have 45-degree fields. Population-based screening programmes that utilise non-mydriatic photography commonly capture a single 45-degree field centred on the fovea of each eye [37]. For many mydriatic schemes, two 45-degree fields are taken [38] – one centred on the fovea and one on the optic disc. The Scanning Confocal Ophthalmoscopes have the fields of view shown below: (a) Heidelberg Spectralis OCT2 with multicolour function- ality: 1-field or 2-field non-mydriatic 55-degree image(s) per eye (when using supplementary lens) (b) Optos California: 1-field non-mydriatic 200-degree image per eye (c) Zeiss Clarus 500: 1-field non-mydriatic 130-degree image per eye (d) CentreVue Eidon: 1- or 2-field non-mydriatic 60-de- gree image(s) per eye Size of the Device and Hand-Held Cameras There have been many claims for the use of smart- phones in DR screening. There is an excellent review of potential devices by Bolster et al. [39]. Hand-held devices have historically performed poorly in DR screening [40] although a recent study suggested that they could be used for optic disc imaging [41] and another study suggested that a small device had been validated [42] for DR screen- ing. The latter was an excellent study that compared the sensitivity and specificity of a “fundus on phone” camera, a smartphone-based retinal imaging system, as a screen- ing tool for DR detection and DR severity in comparison with 7-standard field digital retinal photography. It was noteworthy that mydriasis was used and that the smart- phone was fixed and the patient’s head positioned using a slit lamp chin rest, overcoming many of the problems of movement of patient and operator that is associated with hand-held devices. It may be that the way forward with these small devices is to use an inexpensive device to fix them and a slit lamp chin rest for the patient. Mydriasis versus Non-Mydriasis or a Combination of Both A strong correlation has been reported [43] between older age and poor-quality image rate in non-mydriatic digital photography in DR screening. The main reason for this is higher rates of media opacity and smaller pupil sizes in older people. Scanlon et al. [44] reported an un- gradable image rate for non-mydriatic photography of 19.7% (95% CI 18.4–21.0%), and Murgatroyd et al. [45] reported an ungradable image rate for non-mydriatic photography of 26%. The mean age of the patients in the study of Scanlon et al. [44] was 65 years, and in that of Murgatroyd et al. [45] the median age of the patients was 63.0 years (range 17–88 years, interquartile range 51.8– 70.3 years). There is also an ethnicity component with some studies demonstrating poorer results for non-myd- riatic digital photographic screening in eyes with more iris pigmentation [46]. Scotland introduced the concept of staged mydriasis into their screening programme, only dilating those who the technician taking the images de- termined had poor-quality images without mydriasis. As the age of the Scottish population has increased, the num- Update on Screening for STDR 221Ophthalmic Res 2019;62:218–224 DOI: 10.1159/000499539 bers needing dilation have risen to 34% [pers. commun. Mike Black, Scottish DRS Collaborative Coordinator]. Silva et al. [47] have demonstrated that the ungradable rate per patient for DR and diabetic macular oedema was significantly lower with non-mydriatic ultrawide-field imaging compared with non-mydriatic fundus photogra- phy (DR, 2.8 vs. 26.9%, p < 0.0001; diabetic macular oe- dema, 3.8 vs. 26.2%, p < 0.0001) in the Indian Health Ser- vice-JVN programme, which serves American Indian and Alaska Native communities. Measurement of Distance Visual Acuity Visual acuity is widely accepted as an adjunct to screen- ing for diabetic maculopathy, but in isolation it is not suf- ficiently sensitive to be a screening tool [48, 49], and there is currently no study that supports the added benefit of visual acuity in screening. It is however, from the patient’s perspective, probably the most important factor. Grading the Images In most screening programmes, trained graders grade the images, and the ones with the severer pathology are referred to ophthalmologists to decide on further man- agement. Different grading criteria are used in different countries. Use of Automated Analysis for Grading Automated grading of images from DR screening has been pioneered in Scotland with the development of iGrad- ingM (Scottish Health Innovations Ltd.) which has been used extensively as first level disease/no disease grader [50]. This includes an image quality assessment to reduce the workload of manual grading in the Scottish screening pro- gramme which takes 1-field non-mydriatic photographs. Tufail et al. [51] reported on a study which included a total of 20,258 patients with 102,856 two-field per eye im- ages. Three software products were tested, iGradingM (Scottish Health Innovations Ltd.), EyeArt (Eyenuk Inc., Woodland Hills, CA, USA) and Retmarker (Retmarker Ltd., Coimbra, Portugal), with the following sensitivities: EyeArt 94.7% (95% CI 94.2–95.2%) for any retinopathy (manual grades R1, U, M1, R2 and R3 as refined by arbi- tration), 93.8% (95% CI 92.9–94.6%) for referable reti- nopathy; corresponding sensitivities for Retmarker were 73.0% (95% CI 72.0–74.0%) for any retinopathy, 85.0% (95% CI 83.6–86.2%) for referable retinopathy. For man- ual grades R0 and no maculopathy (M0), specificity was 20% (95% CI 19–21%) for EyeArt and 53% (95% CI 52– 54%) for Retmarker. In this study the version of iGrad- ingM was unable to grade the nasal field. The Iowa Detection Program (IDx-DR) is another soft- ware solution for automated grading that was tested [52] in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System in the Netherlands. There are also a number of developing systems [53, 54] that are not yet commercially available. Automated analysis of OCT images through use of deep learning is being explored in a collaborative project between Moorfields Eye Hospital and Google DeepMind [55] and in the Singapore Eye Research Centre [35]. A recent study [56] examined the variability in differ- ent methods of grading, definitions of reference stan- dards, and their effects on building deep learning models for the detection of diabetic eye disease. The results from the studies are very dependent on the image sets that they are being tested upon. Cost-Effectiveness The cost-effectiveness of screening for STDR is depen- dent on the local health care system but there are various reports of screening being cost-effective in health care set- tings such as Singapore [57], Canada [58], South Africa [59] and India [60] with the proviso that low-risk groups can be identified and cost-effectiveness of screening for STDR can be improved in some settings by differential or individualised screening intervals for low- and high-risk groups [61–63]. Automated grading was shown to be cost- effective in the Scottish Screening Programme [64, 65], and the Tufail study [51] reported that two of the software packages that they tested (Retmarker and EyeArt) achieved acceptable sensitivity for referable retinopathy and false- positive rates (compared with human graders as reference standard) and appear to be cost-effective. The use of OCT in screening has been considered but the cost of the equipment makes it more likely that this would only be useful as a second-line screening tool [66, 67] for those who are screen positive with 2-dimensional photographic markers for diabetic maculopathy. With respect to the use of ultrawide-field imaging sys- tems in DR screening programmes, a review by Fenner et al. [68] summed up the current situation that, despite the impressive outcomes in clinical trials, it remains unclear whether the cost savings of reduced inappropriate refer- rals are sufficient to justify the financial outlay. Discussion/Conclusion There have been many recent advances in technology that may be adopted by screening programmes for STDR in the future. ScanlonOphthalmic Res 2019;62:218–224222 DOI: 10.1159/000499539 Most screening programmes currently use staged mydriasis with one 45-degree field non-mydriatic digi- tal photography or two 45-degree field mydriatic digital photography. Advances in camera technology and in particular scanning confocal ophthalmoscopes with la- ser light or light-emitting diodes show good potential for non-mydriatic photography with wider fields. Each device will need to demonstrate effectiveness and cost- effectiveness before more widespread adoption. Auto- mated reading of images is progressing, with Scotland having already introduced this into their national pro- grammes and other countries likely to follow in the fu- ture. Statement of Ethics The author has no ethical conflicts to disclose. Disclosure Statement I have attended Advisory Boards for Pfizer, Allergan, Roche, Bayer and Boehringer. My department has received Educational, Research and Audit Grants from Allergan, Pfizer, Novartis, Boehringer and Bayer in the last 10 years. Funding Sources No funding has been received for the preparation of this man- uscript. References 1 Wilson J, Jungner G. The principles and prac- tice of screening for disease. Public Health Pa- pers 34. Public Health Papers. Geneva: WHO; 1968.55 De Fauw J, Ledsam JR, Romera- Paredes B, Nikolov S, Tomasev N, Blackwell S, et al. Clinically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nat Med. 2018 Sep; 24(9): 1342–50. 2 Scanlon P. An evaluation of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening for diabet- ic retinopathy by digital imaging photogra- phy and technician ophthalmoscopy and the subsequent change in activity, workload and costs of new diabetic ophthalmology referrals. London: UCL; 2005. 3 Zheng Y, He M, Congdon N. The worldwide epidemic of diabetic retinopathy. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2012 Sep-Oct; 60(5): 428–31. 4 Yau JW, Rogers SL, Kawasaki R, Lamoureux EL, Kowalski JW, Bek T, et al; Meta-Analysis for Eye Disease (META-EYE) Study Group. Global prevalence and major risk factors of diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care. 2012 Mar; 35(3): 556–64. 5 International Diabetes Federation. IDF dia- betes atlas Brussels, Belgium 2013. 6th ed. [cited 2014 April 16]. Available from: http:// www.idf.org/diabetesatlas 6 Stefánsson E. Prevention of diabetic blind- ness. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006 Jan; 90(1): 2–3. 7 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Fundus photo- graphic risk factors for progression of dia- betic retinopathy. ETDRS report number 12. Ophthalmology. 1991 May; 98(5 Suppl): 823–33. 8 Stratton IM, Aldington SJ, Taylor DJ, Adler AI, Scanlon PH. A simple risk stratification for time to development of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy. Diabetes Care. 2013 Mar; 36(3): 580–5. 9 Ruta LM, Magliano DJ, Lemesurier R, Taylor HR, Zimmet PZ, Shaw JE. Prevalence of dia- betic retinopathy in Type 2 diabetes in devel- oping and developed countries. Diabet Med. 2013 Apr; 30(4): 387–98. 10 Nathan DM, Genuth S, Lachin J, Cleary P, Crof- ford O, Davis M, et al; Diabetes Control and Complications Trial Research Group. The effect of intensive treatment of diabetes on the devel- opment and progression of long-term compli- cations in insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus. N Engl J Med. 1993 Sep; 329(14): 977–86. 11 Stratton IM, Kohner EM, Aldington SJ, Turner RC, Holman RR, Manley SE, et al. UKPDS 50: risk factors for incidence and progression of retinopathy in Type II diabetes over 6 years from diagnosis. Diabetologia. 2001 Feb; 44(2): 156–63. 12 Ferris FL 3rd, Nathan DM. Preventing Dia- betic Retinopathy Progression. Ophthalmol- ogy. 2016 Sep; 123(9): 1840–2. 13 Matthews DR, Stratton IM, Aldington SJ, Holman RR, Kohner EM; UK Prospective Diabetes Study Group. Risks of progression of retinopathy and vision loss related to tight blood pressure control in type 2 diabe- tes mellitus: UKPDS 69. Arch Ophthalmol. 2004 Nov; 122(11): 1631–40. 14 Chase HP, Garg SK, Jackson WE, Thomas MA, Harris S, Marshall G, et al. Blood pres- sure and retinopathy in type I diabetes. Oph- thalmology. 1990 Feb; 97(2): 155–9. 15 Davies EG, Petty RG, Kohner EM. Long term effectiveness of photocoagulation for diabetic maculopathy. Eye (Lond). 1989; 3(Pt 6): 764–7. 16 Chew EY, Ferris FL 3rd, Csaky KG, Murphy RP, Agrón E, Thompson DJ, et al. The long-term effects of laser photocoagulation treatment in patients with diabetic retinopathy: the early treatment diabetic retinopathy follow-up study. Ophthalmology. 2003 Sep; 110(9): 1683–9. 17 Elman MJ, Qin H, Aiello LP, Beck RW, Bressler NM, Ferris FL 3rd, et al.; Diabetic Ret- inopathy Clinical Research Network. Intravit- real ranibizumab for diabetic macular edema with prompt versus deferred laser treatment: three-year randomized trial results. Ophthal- mology. 2012 Nov; 119(11): 2312–8. 18 Wells JA, Glassman AR, Ayala AR, Jampol LM, Bressler NM, Bressler SB, et al.; Diabetic Reti- nopathy Clinical Research Network. Afliber- cept, Bevacizumab, or Ranibizumab for Diabetic Macular Edema: Two-Year Results from a Com- parative Effectiveness Randomized Clinical Tri- al. Ophthalmology. 2016 Jun; 123(6): 1351–9. 19 Sivaprasad S, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Rid- dell A, Murphy C, Kelly J, et al.; CLARITY Study Group. Clinical efficacy of intravitreal aflibercept versus panretinal photocoagulation for best corrected visual acuity in patients with proliferative diabetic retinopathy at 52 weeks (CLARITY): a multicentre, single-blinded, ran- domised, controlled, phase 2b, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017 Jun; 389(10085): 2193–203. 20 Gross JG, Glassman AR, Liu D, Sun JK, Anto- szyk AN, Baker CW, et al.; Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Five-Year Out- comes of Panretinal Photocoagulation vs Intra- vitreous Ranibizumab for Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2018 Oct; 136(10): 1138–48. 21 Open Athens. 2019 [cited 2019 Feb 22]. Avail- able from: https://www.openathens.net/ 22 Royal Society of Medicine. 2019 [cited 2019 Feb 22]. Available from: https://www.rsm. ac.uk/the-library/ 23 Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Research Group. Grading diabetic retinopathy from stereoscopic color fundus photographs— an extension of the modified Airlie House clas- sification. ETDRS report number 10. Ophthal- mology. 1991 May; 98(5 Suppl): 786–806. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=1#ref1 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=1#ref1 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=1#ref1 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=2#ref2 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=2#ref2 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=2#ref2 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=2#ref2 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=2#ref2 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=2#ref2 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=3#ref3 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=3#ref3 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=4#ref4 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=6#ref6 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=7#ref7 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=8#ref8 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=9#ref9 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=10#ref10 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=11#ref11 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=12#ref12 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=12#ref12 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=13#ref13 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=14#ref14 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=14#ref14 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=15#ref15 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=16#ref16 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=17#ref17 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=17#ref17 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=18#ref18 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=19#ref19 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=20#ref20 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=23#ref23 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=23#ref23 Update on Screening for STDR 223Ophthalmic Res 2019;62:218–224 DOI: 10.1159/000499539 24 Moss SE, Meuer SM, Klein R, Hubbard LD, Brothers RJ, Klein BE. Are seven standard photographic fields necessary for classifica- tion of diabetic retinopathy? Invest Ophthal- mol Vis Sci. 1989 May; 30(5): 823–8. 25 Lin DY, Blumenkranz MS, Brothers RJ, Gros- venor DM. The sensitivity and specificity of single-field nonmydriatic monochromatic digital fundus photography with remote im- age interpretation for diabetic retinopathy screening: a comparison with ophthalmosco- py and standardized mydriatic color photog- raphy. Am J Ophthalmol. 2002 Aug; 134(2): 204–13. 26 Pugh JA, Jacobson JM, Van Heuven WA, Watters JA, Tuley MR, Lairson DR, et al. Screening for diabetic retinopathy. The wide- angle retinal camera. Diabetes Care. 1993 Jun; 16(6): 889–95. 27 Kinyoun J, Barton F, Fisher M, Hubbard L, Aiello L, Ferris F 3rd; ETDRS Research Group. Detection of diabetic macular edema. Ophthalmoscopy versus photography – Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study Re- port Number 5. Ophthalmology. 1989 Jun; 96(6): 746–50. 28 Scanlon PH, Malhotra R, Greenwood RH, Aldington SJ, Foy C, Flatman M, et al. Com- parison of two reference standards in validat- ing two field mydriatic digital photography as a method of screening for diabetic retinopa- thy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2003 Oct; 87(10): 1258– 63. 29 Gangaputra S, Lovato JF, Hubbard L, Davis MD, Esser BA, Ambrosius WT, et al.; AC- CORD Eye Research Group. Comparison of standardized clinical classification with fun- dus photograph grading for the assessment of diabetic retinopathy and diabetic macular edema severity. Retina. 2013 Jul-Aug; 33(7): 1393–9. 30 Gangaputra S, Almukhtar T, Glassman AR, Aiello LP, Bressler N, Bressler SB, et al.; Dia- betic Retinopathy Clinical Research Network. Comparison of film and digital fundus photo- graphs in eyes of individuals with diabetes mellitus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2011 Aug; 52(9): 6168–73. 31 Marshall S. The Exeter BDA meeting - a syn- opsis. Diabet Med. 1988; 5 Suppl 1:iii–iv. 32 BDA. Retinal photography screening for dia- betic eye disease. London: British Diabetic Association; 1997. 33 Garvican L, Clowes J, Gillow T. Preservation of sight in diabetes: developing a national risk reduction programme. Diabet Med. 2000 Sep; 17(9): 627–34. 34 Piyasena MM, Murthy GV, Yip JL, Gilbert C, Peto T, Gordon I, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of detec- tion of any level of diabetic retinopathy using digital retinal imaging. Syst Rev. 2018 Nov; 7(1): 182. 35 Goh JK, Cheung CY, Sim SS, Tan PC, Tan GS, Wong TY. Retinal Imaging Techniques for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2016 Feb; 10(2): 282–94. 36 Silva PS, Cavallerano JD, Haddad NM, Tolls D, Thakore K, Patel B, et al. Comparison of non- diabetic retinal findings identified with non- mydriatic fundus photography vs ultrawide field imaging in an ocular telehealth program. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2016 Mar; 134(3): 330–4. 37 Williams GA, Scott IU, Haller JA, Maguire AM, Marcus D, McDonald HR. Single-field fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy screening: a report by the American Academy of Ophthalmology. Ophthalmology. 2004 May; 111(5): 1055–62. 38 Scanlon PH. The English National Screening Programme for diabetic retinopathy 2003- 2016. Acta Diabetol. 2017 Jun; 54(6): 515–25. 39 Bolster NM, Giardini ME, Bastawrous A. The Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Workflow: Potential for Smartphone Imaging. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2015 Nov; 10(2): 318–24. 40 Yogesan K, Constable IJ, Barry CJ, Eikelboom RH, McAllister IL, Tay-Kearney ML. Tele- medicine screening of diabetic retinopathy using a hand-held fundus camera. Telemed J. 2000; 6(2): 219–23. 41 Bastawrous A, Giardini ME, Bolster NM, Peto T, Shah N, Livingstone IA, et al. Clinical Val- idation of a Smartphone-Based Adapter for Optic Disc Imaging in Kenya. JAMA Oph- thalmol. 2016 Feb; 134(2): 151–8. 42 Rajalakshmi R, Arulmalar S, Usha M, Prat- hiba V, Kareemuddin KS, Anjana RM, et al. Validation of Smartphone Based Retinal Pho- tography for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening. PLoS One. 2015 Sep; 10(9):e0138285. 43 Scanlon PH, Foy C, Malhotra R, Aldington SJ. The influence of age, duration of diabe- tes, cataract, and pupil size on image qual- ity in digital photographic retinal screen- ing. Diabetes Care. 2005 Oct; 28(10): 2448– 53. 44 Scanlon PH, Malhotra R, Thomas G, Foy C, Kirkpatrick JN, Lewis-Barned N, et al. The ef- fectiveness of screening for diabetic retinopa- thy by digital imaging photography and tech- nician ophthalmoscopy. Diabet Med. 2003 Jun; 20(6): 467–74. 45 Murgatroyd H, Ellingford A, Cox A, Binnie M, Ellis JD, MacEwen CJ, et al. Effect of my- driasis and different field strategies on digital image screening of diabetic eye disease. Br J Ophthalmol. 2004 Jul; 88(7): 920–4. 46 Gupta V, Bansal R, Gupta A, Bhansali A. Sen- sitivity and specificity of nonmydriatic digital imaging in screening diabetic retinopathy in Indian eyes. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug; 62(8): 851–6. 47 Silva PS, Horton MB, Clary D, Lewis DG, Sun JK, Cavallerano JD, et al. Identifica- tion of Diabetic Retinopathy and Ungrad- able Image Rate with Ultrawide Field Im- aging in a National Teleophthalmology Program. Ophthalmology. 2016 Jun; 123(6): 1360–7. 48 Scanlon PH, Foy C, Chen FK. Visual acuity measurement and ocular co-morbidity in dia- betic retinopathy screening. Br J Ophthalmol. 2008 Jun; 92(6): 775–8. 49 Corcoran JS, Moore K, Agarawal OP, Edgar DF, Yudkin J. Visual acuity screening for dia- betic maculopathy. Pract Diabetes. 1985; 2: 230–2. 50 Fleming AD, Philip S, Goatman KA, Prescott GJ, Sharp PF, Olson JA. The evidence for auto- mated grading in diabetic retinopathy screen- ing. Curr Diabetes Rev. 2011 Jul; 7(4): 246–52. 51 Tufail A, Kapetanakis VV, Salas-Vega S, Egan C, Rudisill C, Owen CG, et al. An observa- tional study to assess if automated diabetic retinopathy image assessment software can replace one or more steps of manual imaging grading and to determine their cost-effective- ness. 2016. p. 1–73. Available from: https:// w w w . j o u r n a l s l i b r a r y . n i h r . a c . u k / h t a / hta20920/#/full-report 52 van der Heijden AA, Abramoff MD, Verbraak F, van Hecke MV, Liem A, Nijpels G. Valida- tion of automated screening for referable dia- betic retinopathy with the IDx-DR device in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System. Acta Oph- thalmol. 2018 Feb; 96(1): 63–8. 53 Li Z, Keel S, Liu C, He Y, Meng W, Scheetz J, et al. An Automated Grading System for De- tection of Vision-Threatening Referable Dia- betic Retinopathy on the Basis of Color Fun- dus Photographs. Diabetes Care. 2018 Dec; 41(12): 2509–16. 54 Ramachandran N, Hong SC, Sime MJ, Wilson GA. Diabetic retinopathy screening using deep neural network. Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018 May; 46(4): 412–6. 55 De Fauw J, Ledsam JR, Romera-Paredes B, Nikolov S, Tomasev N, Blackwell S, et al. Clin- ically applicable deep learning for diagnosis and referral in retinal disease. Nat Med. 2018 Sep; 24(9): 1342–50. 56 Krause J, Gulshan V, Rahimy E, Karth P, Wid- ner K, Corrado GS, et al. Grader Variability and the Importance of Reference Standards for Evaluating Machine Learning Models for Diabetic Retinopathy. Ophthalmology. 2018 Aug; 125(8): 1264–72. 57 Nguyen HV, Tan GS, Tapp RJ, Mital S, Ting DS, Wong HT, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a National Telemedicine Diabetic Retinopathy screening program in Singapore. Ophthal- mology. 2016; 123(12): 2571–80. 58 Kanjee R, Dookeran RI, Mathen MK, Stockl FA, Leicht R. Six-year prevalence and inci- dence of diabetic retinopathy and cost-effec- tiveness of tele-ophthalmology in Manitoba. Can J Ophthalmol/J Can Ophtalmol. 2016; 51(6): 467–70. 59 Khan T, Bertram MY, Jina R, Mash B, Levitt N, Hofman K. Preventing diabetes blindness: cost effectiveness of a screening programme using digital non-mydriatic fundus photogra- phy for diabetic retinopathy in a primary health care setting in South Africa. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2013 Aug; 101(2): 170–6. 60 Rachapelle S, Legood R, Alavi Y, Lindfield R, Sharma T, Kuper H, et al. The cost-utility of telemedicine to screen for diabetic retinopa- thy in India. Ophthalmology. 2013 Mar; 120(3): 566–73. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=24#ref24 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=24#ref24 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=25#ref25 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=26#ref26 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=27#ref27 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=28#ref28 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=29#ref29 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=30#ref30 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=31#ref31 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=33#ref33 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=34#ref34 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=35#ref35 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=35#ref35 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=36#ref36 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=37#ref37 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=38#ref38 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=39#ref39 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=39#ref39 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=40#ref40 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=41#ref41 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=41#ref41 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=42#ref42 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=43#ref43 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=44#ref44 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=45#ref45 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=45#ref45 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=46#ref46 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=47#ref47 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=48#ref48 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=49#ref49 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=50#ref50 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=52#ref52 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=52#ref52 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=53#ref53 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=54#ref54 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=55#ref55 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=56#ref56 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=57#ref57 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=57#ref57 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=58#ref58 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=59#ref59 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=59#ref59 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=60#ref60 ScanlonOphthalmic Res 2019;62:218–224224 DOI: 10.1159/000499539 61 Scanlon PH, Aldington SJ, Leal J, Luengo- Fernandez R, Oke J, Sivaprasad S, et al. Devel- opment of a cost-effectiveness model for op- timisation of the screening interval in diabet- ic retinopathy screening. Health Technol Assess. 2015 Sep; 19(74): 1–116. 62 Scanlon PH. Screening Intervals for Diabetic Retinopathy and Implications for Care. Curr Diab Rep. 2017 Sep; 17(10): 96. 63 Lund SH, Aspelund T, Kirby P, Russell G, Einarsson S, Palsson O, et al. Individualised risk assessment for diabetic retinopathy and optimisation of screening intervals: a scien- tific approach to reducing healthcare costs. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016 May; 100(5): 683–7. 64 Scotland GS, McNamee P, Philip S, Fleming AD, Goatman KA, Prescott GJ, et al. Cost- effectiveness of implementing automated grading within the national screening pro- gramme for diabetic retinopathy in Scot- land. Br J Ophthalmol. 2007 Nov; 91(11): 1518–23. 65 Scotland GS, McNamee P, Fleming AD, Goatman KA, Philip S, Prescott GJ, et al.; Scottish Diabetic Retinopathy Clinical Re- search Network. Costs and consequences of automated algorithms versus manual grad- ing for the detection of referable diabetic ret- inopathy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010 Jun; 94(6): 712–9. 66 Prescott G, Sharp P, Goatman K, Scotland G, Fleming A, Philip S, et al. Improving the cost- effectiveness of photographic screening for diabetic macular oedema: a prospective, multi-centre, UK study. Br J Ophthalmol. 2014 Aug; 98(8): 1042–9. 67 Leal J, Luengo-Fernandez R, Stratton IM, Dale A, Ivanova K, Scanlon PH. Cost-effec- tiveness of digital surveillance clinics with op- tical coherence tomography versus hospital eye service follow-up for patients with screen- positive maculopathy. Eye (Lond). 2018. DOI: 10.1038/s41433-018-0297-7. 68 Fenner BJ, Wong RL, Lam WC, Tan GS, Cheung GC. Advances in Retinal Imaging and Applications in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Review. Ophthalmol Ther. 2018 Dec; 7(2): 333–46. https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=61#ref61 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=61#ref61 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=62#ref62 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=62#ref62 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=63#ref63 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=63#ref63 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=64#ref64 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=65#ref65 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=66#ref66 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=67#ref67 https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/499539?ref=68#ref68