Evaluation of Nonmydriatic Hand-held Optic Disc Photography Grading in the Philadelphia Glaucoma Detection and Treatment Project. Issue 5 (May 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Waisbourd, Michael; Bond, Emily A.; Sullivan, Timothy; Hu, Wanda D.; Shah, Sonya B.; Molineaux, Jeanne; Sembhi, Harjeet; Spaeth, George L.; Myers, Jonathan S.; Hark, Lisa A.; Katz, L. Jay
• Is Part Of: Journal of glaucoma. Volume 25:Issue 5(2016:Jun./Jul.)
• Publication Date: 2016-05
• Subjects: glaucoma detection -- glaucoma screening -- fundus photography -- optic disc grading; Glaucoma -- Periodicals; 617.741005
• DOI: 10.1097/IJG.0000000000000382
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1057-0829

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: To determine the reproducibility of optic disc photograph grading obtained by a hand-held fundus camera and to determine the diagnostic value of these photographs in detecting patients with glaucoma in a community-based glaucoma-detection program. Materials and Methods: Patients underwent slit-lamp examination by an ophthalmologist who graded each patient's optic discs using 2 methods: cup-to-disc ratio (CDR) and disc damage likelihood scale (DDLS). After a comprehensive glaucoma evaluation, patients were diagnosed as having "glaucoma, " "glaucoma suspect, " or "no glaucoma." Nonmydriatic, monoscopic optic disc photographs were then taken with a portable digital imaging device. On a different day, the same examiner and a second observer graded the disc photographs in a masked manner and determined a diagnostic impression based only on the disc photographs. Results: Of the 1649 patients examined, 119 subjects were randomly selected according to 3 groups of diagnoses: "glaucoma" (n=36), "glaucoma suspect" (n=50), and "no glaucoma" (n=33). For CDR, the intraobserver agreement was 0.71 and the interobserver agreement was 0.69. For disc DDLS, the intraobserver agreement was 0.65 and the interobserver agreement was 0.67. The area under the receiver-operating characteristic distinguishing between normal and glaucoma was 0.88 and 0.86 for CDR and disc DDLS, respectively. Conclusions: Nonmydriatic, monoscopic disc photographs obtained by a hand-held camera had only moderate disc grading reproducibility. This could be due to a reduced quality of images, making interpretation more challenging, due to taking photographs through small pupils by a hand-held camera and the high percentage of patients with significant cataracts.