Comparability of digital photography with the ETDRS film protocol for evaluation of diabetic retinopathy severity

Helen K. Li, Ronald P. Danis, Larry D. Hubbard, Jose F. Florez-Arango, Adol Esquivel, Elizabeth A Krupinski

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose. To evaluate digital photography parameters affecting comparability with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) film protocol for diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity grading. Methods. ETDRS protocol photographs and four variations of digital images (uncompressed stereoscopic, compressed stereoscopic, uncompressed monoscopic, and uncompressed monoscopic wide-angle mosaic) of 152 eyes were independently evaluated by using ETDRS classifications. Digital formats were compared to film and each other for agreement on severity level, DR presence at ascending threshold, presence of the DR index lesion, and repeatability of grading. Study parameters included image resolution sufficient to distinguish small lesions, color balancing of digital images to film, documenting essential ETDRS classification retinal regions, similar magnification, and supplementary green-channel viewing. Results. The κ statistic was substantial or near substantial between all digital formats and film for classifying severity levels (κ = 0.59-0.62; κ w [linear weighted] = 0.83-0.87). The distribution of DR levels in all digital formats was not significantly different from that of the film (Bhapkar test, P = 0.09-0.44). The κ among digital formats for severity level was also substantial or near substantial (κ = 0.58-0.76, κ w = 0.82-0.92). Differences between digital formats and film for grading severity level, severity threshold, or index lesions were not significant. The repeatability of grading between readers using film and all digital formats was also similar. Conclusions. Digital format variations compared favorably with film for DR classification. Translating film characteristics (resolution, color/contrast) and protocol (magnification, retinal regions) to digital equivalents and augmentation of full color with green-channel viewing most likely contributed to the results.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)4717-4725
Number of pages9
JournalInvestigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science
Volume52
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

Photography
Diabetic Retinopathy
Color

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology
  • Sensory Systems
  • Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Comparability of digital photography with the ETDRS film protocol for evaluation of diabetic retinopathy severity. / Li, Helen K.; Danis, Ronald P.; Hubbard, Larry D.; Florez-Arango, Jose F.; Esquivel, Adol; Krupinski, Elizabeth A.

In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, Vol. 52, No. 7, 06.2011, p. 4717-4725.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Li, Helen K. ; Danis, Ronald P. ; Hubbard, Larry D. ; Florez-Arango, Jose F. ; Esquivel, Adol ; Krupinski, Elizabeth A. / Comparability of digital photography with the ETDRS film protocol for evaluation of diabetic retinopathy severity. In: Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2011 ; Vol. 52, No. 7. pp. 4717-4725.
@article{0a838e32abb1436481258fe2fb7c905d,
title = "Comparability of digital photography with the ETDRS film protocol for evaluation of diabetic retinopathy severity",
abstract = "Purpose. To evaluate digital photography parameters affecting comparability with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) film protocol for diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity grading. Methods. ETDRS protocol photographs and four variations of digital images (uncompressed stereoscopic, compressed stereoscopic, uncompressed monoscopic, and uncompressed monoscopic wide-angle mosaic) of 152 eyes were independently evaluated by using ETDRS classifications. Digital formats were compared to film and each other for agreement on severity level, DR presence at ascending threshold, presence of the DR index lesion, and repeatability of grading. Study parameters included image resolution sufficient to distinguish small lesions, color balancing of digital images to film, documenting essential ETDRS classification retinal regions, similar magnification, and supplementary green-channel viewing. Results. The κ statistic was substantial or near substantial between all digital formats and film for classifying severity levels (κ = 0.59-0.62; κ w [linear weighted] = 0.83-0.87). The distribution of DR levels in all digital formats was not significantly different from that of the film (Bhapkar test, P = 0.09-0.44). The κ among digital formats for severity level was also substantial or near substantial (κ = 0.58-0.76, κ w = 0.82-0.92). Differences between digital formats and film for grading severity level, severity threshold, or index lesions were not significant. The repeatability of grading between readers using film and all digital formats was also similar. Conclusions. Digital format variations compared favorably with film for DR classification. Translating film characteristics (resolution, color/contrast) and protocol (magnification, retinal regions) to digital equivalents and augmentation of full color with green-channel viewing most likely contributed to the results.",
author = "Li, {Helen K.} and Danis, {Ronald P.} and Hubbard, {Larry D.} and Florez-Arango, {Jose F.} and Adol Esquivel and Krupinski, {Elizabeth A}",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.1167/iovs.10-6303",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "52",
pages = "4717--4725",
journal = "Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science",
issn = "0146-0404",
publisher = "Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparability of digital photography with the ETDRS film protocol for evaluation of diabetic retinopathy severity

AU - Li, Helen K.

AU - Danis, Ronald P.

AU - Hubbard, Larry D.

AU - Florez-Arango, Jose F.

AU - Esquivel, Adol

AU - Krupinski, Elizabeth A

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - Purpose. To evaluate digital photography parameters affecting comparability with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) film protocol for diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity grading. Methods. ETDRS protocol photographs and four variations of digital images (uncompressed stereoscopic, compressed stereoscopic, uncompressed monoscopic, and uncompressed monoscopic wide-angle mosaic) of 152 eyes were independently evaluated by using ETDRS classifications. Digital formats were compared to film and each other for agreement on severity level, DR presence at ascending threshold, presence of the DR index lesion, and repeatability of grading. Study parameters included image resolution sufficient to distinguish small lesions, color balancing of digital images to film, documenting essential ETDRS classification retinal regions, similar magnification, and supplementary green-channel viewing. Results. The κ statistic was substantial or near substantial between all digital formats and film for classifying severity levels (κ = 0.59-0.62; κ w [linear weighted] = 0.83-0.87). The distribution of DR levels in all digital formats was not significantly different from that of the film (Bhapkar test, P = 0.09-0.44). The κ among digital formats for severity level was also substantial or near substantial (κ = 0.58-0.76, κ w = 0.82-0.92). Differences between digital formats and film for grading severity level, severity threshold, or index lesions were not significant. The repeatability of grading between readers using film and all digital formats was also similar. Conclusions. Digital format variations compared favorably with film for DR classification. Translating film characteristics (resolution, color/contrast) and protocol (magnification, retinal regions) to digital equivalents and augmentation of full color with green-channel viewing most likely contributed to the results.

AB - Purpose. To evaluate digital photography parameters affecting comparability with the Early Treatment Diabetic Retinopathy Study (ETDRS) film protocol for diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity grading. Methods. ETDRS protocol photographs and four variations of digital images (uncompressed stereoscopic, compressed stereoscopic, uncompressed monoscopic, and uncompressed monoscopic wide-angle mosaic) of 152 eyes were independently evaluated by using ETDRS classifications. Digital formats were compared to film and each other for agreement on severity level, DR presence at ascending threshold, presence of the DR index lesion, and repeatability of grading. Study parameters included image resolution sufficient to distinguish small lesions, color balancing of digital images to film, documenting essential ETDRS classification retinal regions, similar magnification, and supplementary green-channel viewing. Results. The κ statistic was substantial or near substantial between all digital formats and film for classifying severity levels (κ = 0.59-0.62; κ w [linear weighted] = 0.83-0.87). The distribution of DR levels in all digital formats was not significantly different from that of the film (Bhapkar test, P = 0.09-0.44). The κ among digital formats for severity level was also substantial or near substantial (κ = 0.58-0.76, κ w = 0.82-0.92). Differences between digital formats and film for grading severity level, severity threshold, or index lesions were not significant. The repeatability of grading between readers using film and all digital formats was also similar. Conclusions. Digital format variations compared favorably with film for DR classification. Translating film characteristics (resolution, color/contrast) and protocol (magnification, retinal regions) to digital equivalents and augmentation of full color with green-channel viewing most likely contributed to the results.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051484219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051484219&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1167/iovs.10-6303

DO - 10.1167/iovs.10-6303

M3 - Article

VL - 52

SP - 4717

EP - 4725

JO - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

JF - Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science

SN - 0146-0404

IS - 7

ER -