BACKGROUND/AIMS: Telemedicine offers potential to improve the accessibility and quality of diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). The aim of this study was to measure accuracy of remote image based ROP diagnosis by three readers using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. METHODS: 64 hospitalised infants who met ROP examination criteria underwent two consecutive bedside procedures: dilated examination by an experienced paediatric ophthalmologist and digital retinal imaging with a commercially available wide angle camera. 410 images from 163 eyes were reviewed independently by three trained ophthalmologist readers, who classified each eye into one of four categories: no ROP, mild ROP, type 2 prethreshold ROP, or ROP requiring treatment. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of mild or worse ROP, type 2 prethreshold or worse ROP, and ROP requiring treatment were determined, compared to a reference standard of dilated ophthalmoscopy. ROC curves were generated by calculating values for each reader at three diagnostic cut-off levels: mild or worse ROP (that is, reader was asked whether image sets represented mild or worse ROP), type 2 prethreshold or worse ROP (that is, reader was asked whether image sets represented type 2 prethreshold or worse ROP), and ROP requiring treatment. RESULTS: Areas under ROC curves ranged from 0.747-0.896 for detection of mild or worse ROP, 0.905-0.946 for detection of type 2 prethreshold or worse ROP, and 0.941-0.968 for detection of ROP requiring treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Remote interpretation is highly accurate among multiple readers for the detection of ROP requiring treatment, but less so for detection of mild or worse ROP.
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Telemedicine offers potential to improve the accessibility and quality of diagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). The aim of this study was to measure accuracy of remote image based ROP diagnosis by three readers using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis. METHODS: 64 hospitalised infants who met ROP examination criteria underwent two consecutive bedside procedures: dilated examination by an experienced paediatric ophthalmologist and digital retinal imaging with a commercially available wide angle camera. 410 images from 163 eyes were reviewed independently by three trained ophthalmologist readers, who classified each eye into one of four categories: no ROP, mild ROP, type 2 prethreshold ROP, or ROP requiring treatment. Sensitivity and specificity for detection of mild or worse ROP, type 2 prethreshold or worse ROP, and ROP requiring treatment were determined, compared to a reference standard of dilated ophthalmoscopy. ROC curves were generated by calculating values for each reader at three diagnostic cut-off levels: mild or worse ROP (that is, reader was asked whether image sets represented mild or worse ROP), type 2 prethreshold or worse ROP (that is, reader was asked whether image sets represented type 2 prethreshold or worse ROP), and ROP requiring treatment. RESULTS: Areas under ROC curves ranged from 0.747-0.896 for detection of mild or worse ROP, 0.905-0.946 for detection of type 2 prethreshold or worse ROP, and 0.941-0.968 for detection of ROP requiring treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Remote interpretation is highly accurate among multiple readers for the detection of ROP requiring treatment, but less so for detection of mild or worse ROP.
Authors: Azfar C Wadood; Augusto Azuara-Blanco; Peter Aspinall; Abdel Taguri; Anthony J W King Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Kimberly G Yen; Ditte Hess; Barbara Burke; Rose Anne Johnson; William J Feuer; John T Flynn Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Jeremy D Keenan; Yunling E Du; William Schiff; Gaetano Barile; Joan Li; Ditte J Hess; Rose Anne Johnson; John T Flynn; Justin Starren Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2005
Authors: Anna L Ells; Jonathan M Holmes; William F Astle; Geoff Williams; David A Leske; Michael Fielden; Brad Uphill; Penny Jennett; Marilynne Hebert Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Preeti J Thyparampil; Yangseon Park; M E Martinez-Perez; Thomas C Lee; David J Weissgold; Audina M Berrocal; R V Paul Chan; John T Flynn; Michael F Chiang Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Rony Gelman; Lei Jiang; Yunling E Du; M Elena Martinez-Perez; John T Flynn; Michael F Chiang Journal: J AAPOS Date: 2007-10-29 Impact factor: 1.220
Authors: Hilal Biten; Travis K Redd; Chace Moleta; J Peter Campbell; Susan Ostmo; Karyn Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Joo-Yeon Lee; Yunling E Du; Osode Coki; John T Flynn; Justin Starren; Michael F Chiang Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2009-09-23 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Steven L Williams; Lu Wang; Steven A Kane; Thomas C Lee; David J Weissgold; Audina M Berrocal; Daniel Rabinowitz; Justin Starren; John T Flynn; Michael F Chiang Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2009-12-02 Impact factor: 4.638