ABSTRACT
Purpose: To evaluate agreement of nonmydriatic confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO; EIDON [CenterVue]) and the 7-standard field ETDRS area on ultrawide-field (UWF) SLO imaging for identification of diabetic retinopathy (DR) severity. Design: Single-site, prospective, comparative, instrument validation study. Participants: One hundred ten eyes of 55 patients with diabetes mellitus were evaluated. Methods: Each patient underwent nonmydriatic, nonsimultaneous stereoscopic imaging using the EIDON camera and 4 fields of 60° × 55° were acquired (macula centered, disc centered, temporal macula, superotemporal). Mydriatic UWF retinal images were acquired using a nonsimultaneous stereographic protocol with UWF imaging (California; Optos plc). Before grading, a standardized ETDRS 7-field image mask was applied to all UWF retinal images. Images from each device were graded independently by 2 masked graders using the ETDRS clinical DR classification. Any discrepancy in DR grading between the devices was adjudicated by a third grader. Main Outcome Measures: κ Levels of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity for DR thresholds. Results: Severity by ETDRS grading was as follows: no DR, 10.9%; mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR), 45.5%; moderate NPDR, 16.5%; severe NPDR, 11.8%; proliferative DR, 12.7%; high-risk proliferative DR, 2.7%; and ungradable, 0%. After adjudication, the level of DR identified on EIDON images agreed exactly with that of UWF ETDRS imaging in 87% of eyes (n = 96) and was within 1 step in 99.1% of eyes (n = 109) with a simple κ value of 0.8244 ± 0.0439 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7385-0.9104) and weighted (linear) κ value of 0.9041 ± 0.0257 (95% CI, 0.8537-0.9545). Sensitivity and specificity compared with ETDRS field grading for any DR were 0.96 and 0.75, for moderate NPDR or worse were 0.96 and 0.97, and for severe NPDR or worse were 0.91 and 1.00, respectively. Conclusions: Nonmydriatic 4-field stereoscopic widefield imaging using the EIDON device was comparable with the DR severity identified within the ETDRS 7-standard field area of UWF images. Future studies will need to evaluate the applicability of this device as a clinical and research tool and the impact of different widefield coverage areas.