[HTML][HTML] Smartphone-based fundus imaging–where are we now?

MWM Wintergerst, LG Jansen, FG Holz… - The Asia-Pacific …, 2020 - journals.lww.com
The Asia-Pacific Journal of Ophthalmology, 2020journals.lww.com
With the advent of smartphone-based fundus imaging (SBFI), a low-cost alternative to
conventional digital fundus photography has become available. SBFI allows for a mobile
fundus examination, is applicable both with and without pupil dilation, comes with built-in
connectivity and post-processing capabilities, and is relatively easy to master. Furthermore,
it is delegable to paramedical staff/technicians and, hence, suitable for telemedicine. Against
this background a variety of SBFI applications have become available including screening …
Abstract
With the advent of smartphone-based fundus imaging (SBFI), a low-cost alternative to conventional digital fundus photography has become available. SBFI allows for a mobile fundus examination, is applicable both with and without pupil dilation, comes with built-in connectivity and post-processing capabilities, and is relatively easy to master. Furthermore, it is delegable to paramedical staff/technicians and, hence, suitable for telemedicine. Against this background a variety of SBFI applications have become available including screening for diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, and retinopathy of prematurity and its applications in emergency medicine and pediatrics. In addition, SBFI is convenient for teaching purposes and might serve as a surrogate for direct ophthalmoscopy. First wide-field montage techniques are available and the combination of SBFI with machine learning algorithms for image analyses is promising. In conclusion, SBFI has the potential to make fundus examinations and screenings for patients particularly in low-and middle-income settings more accessible and, therefore, aid tackling the burden of diabetic retinopathy, glaucoma, and retinopathy of prematurity screening. However, image quality for SBFI varies substantially and a reference standard for grading appears prudent. In addition, there is a strong need for comparison of different SBFI approaches in terms of applicability to disease screening and cost-effectiveness.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins