Comparing smartphone camera adapters in imaging post-operative cataract patients.

Introduction The goal of this study is to compare image quality and clinical confidence for managing post-operative cataract patients based on anterior segment smartphone images obtained in real-world settings using four types of adapters: (a) macro lens (ML), (b) ML with augmented light-emitting diode (LED) illumination (ML-LED), (c) no adapter (NA) and (d) slit lamp (SL) adapter. Methods Anterior segment images were obtained from 190 eyes after cataract surgery using an eight-megapixel iPhone 6 smartphone camera with four adapters: ML, ML-LED, NA, and SL. Smartphone images were subjectively rated by ophthalmologists as acceptable or not acceptable for: (a) image quality for evaluating the anterior segment structures and (b) reader confidence in clinically managing post-operative patients based on smartphone images. Results NA, ML-LED, and SL had the highest scores for image quality with 100%, 93.7%, and 86.3% judged as acceptable, respectively. NA, SL, and ML-LED were also rated highest in clinical confidence with 100%, 98%, and 93.2% having acceptable levels, respectively. ML was judged lowest in both image quality (61.1% acceptable) and clinical confidence (37.4% acceptable). Discussion This study represents the first effort to compare different smartphone camera adapters' ability to image the anterior segment of the eye in a real-world setting. Our study shows that ML-LED, NA, and SL adapters were acceptable for visualizing anterior segment structures to physician readers in 86-100% of cases. When coupled with visual acuity, intro-ocular pressure and history, these images can result in acceptable clinical confidence in 93-100% of cases.

Assessing the accuracy and feasibility of a refractive error screening program conducted by school teachers in pre-primary and primary schools in Thailand.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the development of a system for the screening of refractive error in Thai children, this study describes the accuracy and feasibility of establishing a program conducted by teachers. OBJECTIVE: To assess the accuracy and feasibility of screening by teachers. METHODS: A cross-sectional descriptive and analytical study was conducted in 17 schools in four provinces representing four geographic regions in Thailand. A two-staged cluster sampling was employed to compare the detection rate of refractive error among eligible students between trained teachers and health professionals. Serial focus group discussions were held for teachers and parents in order to understand their attitude towards refractive error screening at schools and the potential success factors and barriers. RESULTS: The detection rate of refractive error screening by teachers among pre-primary school children is relatively low (21%) for mild visual impairment but higher for moderate visual impairment (44%). The detection rate for primary school children is high for both levels of visual impairment (52% for mild and 74% for moderate). The focus group discussions reveal that both teachers and parents would benefit from further education regarding refractive errors and that the vast majority of teachers are willing to conduct a school-based screening program. CONCLUSION: Refractive error screening by health professionals in pre-primary and primary school children is not currently implemented in Thailand due to resource limitations. However, evidence suggests that a refractive error screening program conducted in schools by teachers in the country is reasonable and feasible because the detection and treatment of refractive error in very young generations is important and the screening program can be implemented and conducted with relatively low costs.