Comparing smartphone camera adapters in imaging post-operative cataract patients
Journal of telemedicine and telecare, 2017•journals.sagepub.com
Introduction The goal of this study is to compare image quality and clinical confidence for
managing post-operative cataract patients based on anterior segment smartphone images
obtained in real-world settings using four types of adapters:(a) macro lens (ML),(b) ML with
augmented light-emitting diode (LED) illumination (ML-LED),(c) no adapter (NA) and (d) slit
lamp (SL) adapter. Methods Anterior segment images were obtained from 190 eyes after
cataract surgery using an eight-megapixel iPhone 6 smartphone camera with four adapters …
managing post-operative cataract patients based on anterior segment smartphone images
obtained in real-world settings using four types of adapters:(a) macro lens (ML),(b) ML with
augmented light-emitting diode (LED) illumination (ML-LED),(c) no adapter (NA) and (d) slit
lamp (SL) adapter. Methods Anterior segment images were obtained from 190 eyes after
cataract surgery using an eight-megapixel iPhone 6 smartphone camera with four adapters …
Introduction
The goal of this study is to compare image quality and clinical confidence for managing post-operative cataract patients based on anterior segment smartphone images obtained in real-world settings using four types of adapters: (a) macro lens (ML), (b) ML with augmented light-emitting diode (LED) illumination (ML-LED), (c) no adapter (NA) and (d) slit lamp (SL) adapter.
Methods
Anterior segment images were obtained from 190 eyes after cataract surgery using an eight-megapixel iPhone 6 smartphone camera with four adapters: ML, ML-LED, NA, and SL. Smartphone images were subjectively rated by ophthalmologists as acceptable or not acceptable for: (a) image quality for evaluating the anterior segment structures and (b) reader confidence in clinically managing post-operative patients based on smartphone images.
Results
NA, ML-LED, and SL had the highest scores for image quality with 100%, 93.7%, and 86.3% judged as acceptable, respectively. NA, SL, and ML-LED were also rated highest in clinical confidence with 100%, 98%, and 93.2% having acceptable levels, respectively. ML was judged lowest in both image quality (61.1% acceptable) and clinical confidence (37.4% acceptable).
Discussion
This study represents the first effort to compare different smartphone camera adapters’ ability to image the anterior segment of the eye in a real-world setting. Our study shows that ML-LED, NA, and SL adapters were acceptable for visualizing anterior segment structures to physician readers in 86–100% of cases. When coupled with visual acuity, intro-ocular pressure and history, these images can result in acceptable clinical confidence in 93–100% of cases.
Sage Journals以上显示的是最相近的搜索结果。 查看全部搜索结果