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.

Background Smartphone-based fundus imaging allows for mobile and inexpensive fundus examination with the potential to revolutionize eye care, particularly in lower-resource settings. However, most smartphone-based fundus imaging adapters convey image quality not comparable to conventional fundus imaging. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate a novel smartphone-based fundus imaging device for documentation of a variety of retinal/vitreous pathologies in a patient sample with wide refraction and age ranges. Methods Participants’ eyes were dilated and imaged with the iC2 funduscope (HEINE Optotechnik) using an Apple iPhone 6 in single-image acquisition (image resolution of 2448 × 3264 pixels) or video mode (1248 × 1664 pixels) and a subgroup of participants was also examined by conventional fundus imaging (Zeiss VISUCAM 500). Smartphone-based image quality was compared to conventional fundus imaging in terms of sharpness (focus), reflex artifacts, contrast, and illumination on semiquantitative scales. Results A total of 47 eyes from 32 participants (age: mean 62.3, SD 19.8 years; range 7-93; spherical equivalent: mean –0.78, SD 3.21 D; range: –7.88 to +7.0 D) were included in the study. Mean (SD) visual acuity (logMAR) was 0.48 (0.66; range 0-2.3); 30% (14/47) of the eyes were pseudophakic. Image quality was sufficient in all eyes irrespective of refraction. Images acquired with conventional fundus imaging were sharper and had less reflex artifacts, and there was no significant difference in contrast and illumination (P<.001, P=.03, and P=.10, respectively). When comparing image quality at the posterior pole, the mid periphery, and the far periphery, glare increased as images were acquired from a more peripheral part of the retina. Reflex artifacts were more frequent in pseudophakic eyes. Image acquisition was also possible in children. Documentation of deep optic nerve cups in video mode conveyed a mock 3D impression. Conclusions Image quality of conventional fundus imaging was superior to that of smartphone-based fundus imaging, although this novel smartphone-based fundus imaging device achieved image quality high enough to document various fundus pathologies including only subtle findings. High-quality smartphone-based fundus imaging might represent a mobile alternative for fundus documentation in clinical practice.

Smartphone-based fundus imaging (SBFI) is a low-cost approach for screening of various ophthalmic diseases and particularly suited to resource limited settings. Thus, we assessed how best to upskill alternative healthcare cadres in SBFI and whether quality of obtained images is comparable to ophthalmologists. Ophthalmic assistants and ophthalmologists received a standardized training to SBFI (Heine iC2 combined with an iPhone 6) and 10 training examinations for capturing central retinal images. Examination time, total number of images, image alignment, usable field-of-view, and image quality (sharpness/focus, reflex artifacts, contrast/illumination) were analyzed. Thirty examiners (14 ophthalmic assistants and 16 ophthalmologists) and 14 volunteer test subjects were included. Mean examination time (1st and 10th training, respectively: 2.17 ± 1.54 and 0.56 ± 0.51 min, p < .0001), usable field-of-view (92 ± 16% and 98 ± 6.0%, p = .003) and image quality in terms of sharpness/focus (p = .002) improved by the training. Examination time was significantly shorter for ophthalmologists compared to ophthalmic assistants (10th training: 0.35 ± 0.21 and 0.79 ± 0.65 min, p = .011), but there was no significant difference in usable field-of-view and image quality. This study demonstrates the high learnability of SBFI with a relatively short training and mostly comparable results across healthcare cadres. The results will aid implementing and planning further SBFI field studies.

No abstract