Widefield imaging with Clarus fundus camera vs slit lamp fundus examination in assessing patients referred from the National Health Service diabetic retinopathy screening programme.

Abstract

ObjectivesTo compare diabetic retinopathy (DR) grading and management plan between virtual review using widefield Clarus imaging and macular optical coherence tomography (OCT) versus slit lamp clinical examination and macular OCT.MethodNew referrals over 3 months from the National Diabetic Eye Screening programme (DESP) were screened. Patients who had both Clarus widefield imaging and macular OCT were included. All patients underwent slit lamp examination in clinic. Data obtained from electronic patient records included referral reason, DR grading and management plan. Two graders retrospectively reviewed imaging and formulated a management plan blinded to results from patients’ clinic visit. Results from virtual examination were compared with those from slit lamp examination.ResultsOne-hundred and two eyes of 51 patients were assessed. 11 fundus photos from 7 patients and 15 fundus photos from 10 patients were deemed inadequate by grader G1 and G2, respectively. Eighteen (35%) patients and 11 (22%) patients from virtual assessment by G1 and G2, respectively were found to need a face a face appointment to aid diagnosis. Compared to slit lamp examination, 15% and 7.5% of patients from G1 and G2’s virtual assessment respectively had different proposed management plan. Agreement of DR grading between both virtual graders and slit lamp examination was fair (Kappa’s coefficient = 0.56). One case of slit lamp noted retinal neovascularization, which was graded as background retinopathy by DESP was also graded as such on virtual assessment.ConclusionWidefield Clarus and OCT imaging allowed two-thirds of DESP referrals to be safely managed virtually.