UNASSIGNED: Proof-of-concept study to test the feasibility of using an all-in-one portable retinal camera for the screening of diabetic retinopathy in the Pacific Island of Vanuatu, which has a high rate of diabetes and its associated complications and a dearth of ophthalmologists.
UNASSIGNED: From February 10, 2020, through February 28, 2020, 49 patients with diabetes mellitus from three islands in Vanuatu were recruited to participate in the study. Demographics, basic health data and retinal photography were obtained. A non-mydriatic, handheld camera was used (Volk Pictor Plus).
UNASSIGNED: Eleven participants (24%) had referral-warranted diabetic retinopathy. There was moderately high inter-rater reliability for our dependent variables: referral status (κ = 0.62, 95% CI 0.42-0.83), retinopathy severity (κ = 0.76, 95% CI 0.55-0.96), and clinically significant macular edema (κ = 0.50, 95% CI 0.25-0.74).
UNASSIGNED: Our study confirms that portable handheld cameras can be used to obtain retinal images of sufficient quality for diabetic retinopathy screening even in resource limited environments like Vanuatu. Among this cohort, a relatively high (24%) prevalence of referral-warranted diabetic retinopathy was found in Vanuatu.

The purpose of this study was to test the suitability of three available camera technologies (desktop, portable, and i-phone 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.