PURPOSE:Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is an important cause of preventable blindness; barriers to screening necessitate novel approaches. Although trained non-ophthalmologists can accurately grade retinal images for ROP, effective training protocols are not established. This study compares the effectiveness of facilitated versus self-guided training of non-ophthalmologists for grading retinal images for pre-plus or plus disease in ROP. METHODS:Forty-eight undergraduate and graduate students were trained to grade retinal images for the presence of pre-plus or plus disease. Students were randomly assigned to one of two training protocols. Both used identical electronic slideshows: one was guided by an in-person facilitator and the other was self-guided. After completing their respective training, students proficient in grading pre-plus and plus disease graded images in a telemedicine screening scenario. Accuracy of grading was compared to the reference standard of clinical examination. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent (40 of 48) of trained students (91% in the facilitated vs 77% in the self-guided group, P = .26) were proficient and qualified to grade the ROP telemedicine screening scenario. Median accuracy for grading normal, pre-plus, or plus disease was 69% (70% in the facilitated vs 68% in the self-guided group, P = .91). When considering the designation of pre-plus or plus disease by graders as a screening test for detecting plus disease (confirmed on clinical examination), the median sensitivity and specificity of all students were 95% and 64%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both facilitated and self-guided teaching protocols yielded similar performance in ROP image grading for pre-plus or plus disease. Self-guided training protocols may be adequate to train non-ophthalmologists to grade retinal images for pre-plus and plus disease with high sensitivity. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2016;53(3):179-185.]. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE:Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is an important cause of preventable blindness; barriers to screening necessitate novel approaches. Although trained non-ophthalmologists can accurately grade retinal images for ROP, effective training protocols are not established. This study compares the effectiveness of facilitated versus self-guided training of non-ophthalmologists for grading retinal images for pre-plus or plus disease in ROP. METHODS: Forty-eight undergraduate and graduate students were trained to grade retinal images for the presence of pre-plus or plus disease. Students were randomly assigned to one of two training protocols. Both used identical electronic slideshows: one was guided by an in-person facilitator and the other was self-guided. After completing their respective training, students proficient in grading pre-plus and plus disease graded images in a telemedicine screening scenario. Accuracy of grading was compared to the reference standard of clinical examination. RESULTS: Eighty-three percent (40 of 48) of trained students (91% in the facilitated vs 77% in the self-guided group, P = .26) were proficient and qualified to grade the ROP telemedicine screening scenario. Median accuracy for grading normal, pre-plus, or plus disease was 69% (70% in the facilitated vs 68% in the self-guided group, P = .91). When considering the designation of pre-plus or plus disease by graders as a screening test for detecting plus disease (confirmed on clinical examination), the median sensitivity and specificity of all students were 95% and 64%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Both facilitated and self-guided teaching protocols yielded similar performance in ROP image grading for pre-plus or plus disease. Self-guided training protocols may be adequate to train non-ophthalmologists to grade retinal images for pre-plus and plus disease with high sensitivity. [J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2016;53(3):179-185.]. Copyright 2016, SLACK Incorporated.
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: 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
Authors: Natalia Fijalkowski; Luo Luo Zheng; Michael T Henderson; Matthew B Wallenstein; Theodore Leng; Darius M Moshfeghi Journal: Curr Eye Res Date: 2013-01-18 Impact factor: 2.424
Authors: Graham E Quinn; Gui-shuang Ying; Ebenezer Daniel; P Lloyd Hildebrand; Anna Ells; Agnieshka Baumritter; Alex R Kemper; Eleanor B Schron; Kelly Wade Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-10 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: R A Saunders; E C Bluestein; R B Sinatra; M E Wilson; J W O'Neil; P F Rust Journal: J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus Date: 1995 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.402
Authors: Tatiana R Rosenblatt; Marco H Ji; Daniel Vail; Cassie A Ludwig; Ahmad Al-Moujahed; Malini Veerappan Pasricha; Natalia F Callaway; Jochen Kumm; Darius M Moshfeghi Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2021-03-08 Impact factor: 4.379