Comparison of the effectiveness of three retinal camera technologies for malarial retinopathy detection in Malawi

Peter Soliz; Sheila C. Nemeth; E. Simon Barriga; Simon P. Harding; Susan Lewallen; Terrie E. Taylor; Ian J. MacCormick; Vinayak S. Joshi

doi:10.1117/12.2213282

4 March 2016 Comparison of the effectiveness of three retinal camera technologies for malarial retinopathy detection in Malawi

Peter Soliz, Sheila C. Nemeth, E. Simon Barriga, Simon P. Harding, Susan Lewallen, Terrie E. Taylor, Ian J. MacCormick, Vinayak S. Joshi

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 9693, Ophthalmic Technologies XXVI; 96930B (2016) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2213282
Event: SPIE BiOS, 2016, San Francisco, California, United States

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test the suitability of three available camera technologies (desktop, portable, and iphone based) for imaging comatose children who presented with clinical symptoms of malaria. Ultimately, the results of the project would form the basis for a design of a future camera to screen for malaria retinopathy (MR) in a resource challenged environment. The desktop, portable, and i-phone based cameras were represented by the Topcon, Pictor Plus, and Peek cameras, respectively. These cameras were tested on N=23 children presenting with symptoms of cerebral malaria (CM) at a malaria clinic, Queen Elizabeth Teaching Hospital in Malawi, Africa. Each patient was dilated for binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) exam by an ophthalmologist followed by imaging with all three cameras. Each of the cases was graded according to an internationally established protocol and compared to the BIO as the clinical ground truth. The reader used three principal retinal lesions as markers for MR: hemorrhages, retinal whitening, and vessel discoloration. The study found that the mid-priced Pictor Plus hand-held camera performed considerably better than the lower price mobile phone-based camera, and slightly the higher priced table top camera. When comparing the readings of digital images against the clinical reference standard (BIO), the Pictor Plus camera had sensitivity and specificity for MR of 100% and 87%, respectively. This compares to a sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 75% for the i-phone based camera and 100% and 75% for the desktop camera. The drawback of all the cameras were their limited field of view which did not allow complete view of the periphery where vessel discoloration occurs most frequently. The consequence was that vessel discoloration was not addressed in this study. None of the cameras offered real-time image quality assessment to ensure high quality images to afford the best possible opportunity for reading by a remotely located specialist.

Conference Presentation

Citation Download Citation

Peter Soliz, Sheila C. Nemeth, E. Simon Barriga, Simon P. Harding, Susan Lewallen, Terrie E. Taylor, Ian J. MacCormick, and Vinayak S. Joshi "Comparison of the effectiveness of three retinal camera technologies for malarial retinopathy detection in Malawi", Proc. SPIE 9693, Ophthalmic Technologies XXVI, 96930B (4 March 2016); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2213282

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available