Table 3 Comparison of dilated and undilated smartphone-based fundus photography in phakic vs. pseudophakic eyes.
Mean ± SD (dil. SBFP) | Mean ± SD (undil. SBFP) | Difference of the mean | p-value | 95% Confidence interval | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Image quality | |||||
Phakic | 3.38 ± 0.74 | 2.57 ± 1.40 | 0.81 | 0.026 | 0.10–1.51 |
Pseudophakic | 3.39 ± 0.75 | 2.79 ± 0.93 | 0.61 | 0.005 | 0.19–1.02 |
Degree of optic disc rim visualization | |||||
Phakic | 3 ± 0 | 2.33 ± 0.97 | 0.67 | 0.005 | 0.23–1.11 |
Pseudophakic | 2.91 ± 0.29 | 2.09 ± 0.77 | 0.82 | <0.001 | 0.53–1.11 |
Vertical Cup-to-disc evaluation | |||||
Phakic | 0.77 ± 0.14 | 0.71 ± 0.15 | 0.06 | 0.20 | −0.04–0.16 |
Pseudophakic | 0.75 ± 0.13 | 0.70 ± 0.12 | 0.05 | 0.16 | −0.02–0.12 |
Optic disc pallor evaluation | |||||
Phakic | 1.76 ± 0.70 | 2.05 ± 0.78 | − 0.29 | 0.22 | −0.77–0.19 |
Pseudophakic | 1.55 ± 0.71 | 1.53 ± 0.72 | 0.01 | 0.94 | −0.34–0.37 |
