4.6 Article

Diagnostic Discrepancies in Retinopathy of Prematurity Classification

期刊

OPHTHALMOLOGY
卷 123, 期 8, 页码 1795-1801

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2016.04.035

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland [R01 EY19474, P30 EY010572]
  2. Research to Prevent Blindness, New York, New York
  3. St. Giles Foundation
  4. iNsight Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To identify the most common areas for discrepancy in retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) classification between experts. Design: Prospective cohort study. Participants: A total of 281 infants were identified as part of a multicenter, prospective, ROP cohort study from 7 participating centers. Each site had participating ophthalmologists who provided the clinical classification after routine examination using binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) and obtained wide-angle retinal images, which were independently classified by 2 study experts. Methods: Wide-angle retinal images (RetCam; Clarity Medical Systems, Pleasanton, CA) were obtained from study subjects, and 2 experts evaluated each image using a secure web-based module. Image-based classifications for zone, stage, plus disease, and overall disease category (no ROP, mild ROP, type II or pre-plus, and type I) were compared between the 2 experts and with the clinical classification obtained by BIO. Main Outcome Measures: Inter-expert image-based agreement and image-based versus ophthalmoscopic diagnostic agreement using absolute agreement and weighted kappa statistic. Results: A total of 1553 study eye examinations from 281 infants were included in the study. Experts disagreed on the stage classification in 620 of 1553 comparisons (40%), plus disease classification (including pre-plus) in 287 of 1553 comparisons (18%), zone in 117 of 1553 comparisons (8%), and overall ROP category in 618 of 1553 comparisons (40%). However, agreement for presence versus absence of type 1 disease was >95%. There were no differences between image-based and clinical classification except for zone III disease. Conclusions: The most common area of discrepancy in ROP classification is stage, although inter-expert agreement for clinically significant disease, such as presence versus absence of type 1 and type 2 disease, is high. There were no differences between image-based grading and clinical examination in the ability to detect clinically significant disease. This study provides additional evidence that image-based classification of ROP reliably detects clinically significant levels of ROP with high accuracy compared with the clinical examination. (C) 2016 by the American Academy of Ophthalmology.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据