|
| Country | Sample size | Approach | Sensitivity/specificity | Usefulness | Savings |
|
| Bawankar et al. [43] | India | 560 | Bosch nonmydriatic fundus camera | Sensitivity: 91.2%, specificity: 96.9% | Large compliance and accessibility to medical care in rural areas | Estimated decreased costs |
| Rajalakshmi et al. [45] | India | 301 | Carl Zeiss fundus camera and “Fundus on Phone” (FOP) | Sensitivity: 92.7%, specificity: 98.4% (for STDR ➔ 87.9% and 94.9%) | Sleekness, easy portability, and wireless connectivity ➔ easily usable in nonhospital settings | Use of long-life LED illumination and lithium-ion battery in FOP reduces the operational cost of FOP |
| Liesenfeld et al. [48] | Germany | 129 | Slit-lamp biomicroscopy | , | New perspectives ➔ send images
for instant review by a retinal expert | Estimated decreased costs |
| Sasso et al. [50] | Italy | 1461 | Horus Scope | %, % | Eye-care services available to everyone at a sustainable cost | Estimated mean cost per patient €3.02 vs. €7.75 of traditional fundus oculus examination |
| Russo et al. [53] | Italy | 120 | Smartphone ophthalmoscopy (D-Eye) | NPDR—specificity: 95%, sensitivity: 80%
PDR—specificity: 100%, sensitivity: 89% | Portability, affordability, and connectivity of a smartphone ophthalmoscope | Relatively low hardware and production costs (final retail price <$300) |
| Andonegui et al. [55] | Spain | 1223 | Nonmydriatic retinal camera (TRC NW6S, Topcon, USA) | Specificity: 83%, sensitivity: 91%. | Cheaper, less time-consuming, easily applicable to populations far from the specialists, no requirement of pupil dilation | More cost-effective than traditional methods of DR screening |
| Gomez-Ulla et al. [59] | Spain | — | Nonmydriatic fundus camera (Canon, Model CR5-45NM) | — | Larger accessibility | Reduced costs
Digital image ➔ €5.31/pt (at no cost at the endocrinologist consultation)
Direct examination ➔ (cost of ophthalmologist attendance) |
|
