Forty subjects underwent non-mydriatic imaging with the P200C. Subjects were then dilated and underwent traditional ophthalmoscopy and optomap^® assisted ophthalmoscopy. The traditional exam consisted of BIO and slit lamp biomicrosopy with precorneal lenses. optomap^® assisted ophthalmoscopy was identical to traditional, with the exception that the doctor reviewed optomap^® Images before performing their BIO examination. A masked Reader graded the optomap^® Images of all subjects. A retinal specialist examined 28 of the 40 subjects and served as the gold standard.

Sensitivity and specificity of the optomap^® Image review in detecting retinal lesions were compared to sensitivity and specificity of both traditional and optomap^® assisted ophthalmoscopy. The results indicate that using optomap^® Images increases pathology detection. Sensitivity of the Reader (image review alone) outperformed traditional ophthalmoscopy by approximately 15%, while sensitivity of optomap^® assisted ophthalmoscopy outperformed traditional ophthalmoscopy by approximately 30%. Specificity was comparable across all methods.

“I believe the increased sensitivity is due to the optomap^® field of view and in part to the software capabilities. Being able to magnify and zoom-in, adjust the gamma, contrast and brightness as well as using the individual red and green laser separations allows the examiner to really hone in on areas of interest,” said Kristen Brown, OD, FAAO, the Principal Investigator.

Data from a statistically powered study is currently being analyzed, with results expected in 2010.

*Independent clinical study conducted by Kristen Brown, OD, FAAO 1,2, Jeanette Sewell, OD 1,2, Tom Travison, PhD3. 1New England Eye Institute, Boston, MA; 2New England College of Optometry, Boston, MA; 3New England Research Institute, Watertown, MA.