AIM:To evaluate the advantages of non-mydriatic fundus photography(NMFCS)and mydriatic fundus photography(MFCS)as eye-bottom screening and diagnosis methods in compared with gold standard fluorescein fundus angiography(FFA).

METHODS: A total of 276 patients which involved in Chronic Diabetes Management Achieves within 4 streets of Pudong District Shanghai, were enrolled for diabetic retinopathy(DR)examination including NMFCS, MFCS and FFA. These DR examinations were proceeded after vision, slit-lamp and dioptroscopy tests, and reported by professionals. For those with suspicious fundus diseases, we would make appointments with specialist for further treatment.

RESULTS: A total of 1104 colorful fundus images, and 1056 images(95.65%)could be used to analyze. There were 408 appreciable images, 116 basically appreciable images and 28 unusable images in 552 NMFCS images. In addition, there were 432 appreciable images, 100 basically appreciable images and 20 unusable images in 552 MFCS images. There was no significant differences between NMFCS and MFCS(P>0.05). Compared with FFA with DRⅠ as the critical value, the specificity of digital photography for NMFCS was 95.71%, the sensitivity was 93.56%; however, MFCS are 95.43% and 98.02%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods(P>0.05). Compared with FFA with DRⅡ as the critical value, the specificity of digital photography for NMFCS was 95.35% and the sensitivity was 93.44%; however, for MFCS were 95.81% and 98.36%. There was no statistically significant difference between the two screening methods(P>0.05).

CONCLUSION: Both NMFCS and MFCS could be used for the diagnosis and screening for eye diseases. NMFCS is easier and faster for digital photography, which is suitable for mass screening. MFCS is more likely to provide detailed information about the follow-up of the disease.