Ebenezer Daniel1, Wei Pan2, Graham E Quinn3, Eli Smith2, Agnieshka Baumritter4, Gui-Shuang Ying2. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: ebdaniel@mail.med.upenn.edu. 2. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 3. Department of Ophthalmology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Division of Pediatric Ophthalmology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 4. Division of Pediatric Ophthalmology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of single, independent, nonphysician trained reader (TR) gradings in the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) study. METHODS: Secondary analyses of image grading results from 1,235 infants of birth weights <1251 g. Two of three TRs independently graded image sets; discrepancies were adjudicated by the reading center director (an ophthalmologist) to reach final grading. Sensitivity and specificity of each TR grading and final grading was calculated by comparing gradings to clinical examination results. RESULTS: Of 7,808 double graded image sets, TR1 graded 5,165; TR2, 3,787; and TR3, 6,664. Compared to final grading for referral warranted retinopathy of prematurity (RW-ROP), two TRs had relatively lower sensitivity (TR1, 75% vs 79% [P = 0.03]; TR2, 73% vs 77% [P = 0.02]) and specificity (TR1, 80% vs 83% [P < 0.001]; TR2, 82% vs 83% [P = 0.09]). TR3 had similar sensitivity (83% vs 83% [P = 0.78]) and specificity (83% vs 84% [P = 0.02]). Compared to final grading, TR1 had lower sensitivity for zone I ROP (47% vs 56% [P = 0.04]) and stage ≥3 ROP (71% vs 77% [P = 0.002]); TR2 had lower sensitivity for stage ≥3 ROP (69% vs 77% [P < 0.001]) and lower specificity for all three components (P < 0.001); TR3 had lower sensitivity for detecting plus disease (23% vs 35% [P < 0.001]) and similar sensitivity for zone I ROP and stage ≥3 ROP. CONCLUSIONS: There is a small but significant decrease in the sensitivity and specificity for RW-ROP when single-reader grading is compared to double adjudicated grading.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of single, independent, nonphysician trained reader (TR) gradings in the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) study. METHODS: Secondary analyses of image grading results from 1,235 infants of birth weights <1251 g. Two of three TRs independently graded image sets; discrepancies were adjudicated by the reading center director (an ophthalmologist) to reach final grading. Sensitivity and specificity of each TR grading and final grading was calculated by comparing gradings to clinical examination results. RESULTS: Of 7,808 double graded image sets, TR1 graded 5,165; TR2, 3,787; and TR3, 6,664. Compared to final grading for referral warranted retinopathy of prematurity (RW-ROP), two TRs had relatively lower sensitivity (TR1, 75% vs 79% [P = 0.03]; TR2, 73% vs 77% [P = 0.02]) and specificity (TR1, 80% vs 83% [P < 0.001]; TR2, 82% vs 83% [P = 0.09]). TR3 had similar sensitivity (83% vs 83% [P = 0.78]) and specificity (83% vs 84% [P = 0.02]). Compared to final grading, TR1 had lower sensitivity for zone I ROP (47% vs 56% [P = 0.04]) and stage ≥3 ROP (71% vs 77% [P = 0.002]); TR2 had lower sensitivity for stage ≥3 ROP (69% vs 77% [P < 0.001]) and lower specificity for all three components (P < 0.001); TR3 had lower sensitivity for detecting plus disease (23% vs 35% [P < 0.001]) and similar sensitivity for zone I ROP and stage ≥3 ROP. CONCLUSIONS: There is a small but significant decrease in the sensitivity and specificity for RW-ROP when single-reader grading is compared to double adjudicated grading.
Authors: Michael F Chiang; Jeremy D Keenan; Justin Starren; Yunling E Du; William M Schiff; Gaetano R Barile; Joan Li; Rose Anne Johnson; Ditte J Hess; John T Flynn Journal: Arch Ophthalmol Date: 2006-03
Authors: Andreas Gschließer; Eva Stifter; Thomas Neumayer; Elisabeth Moser; Andrea Papp; Niklas Pircher; Guido Dorner; Stefan Egger; Nenad Vukojevic; Isabel Oberacher-Velten; Ursula Schmidt-Erfurth Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-05-21 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: Samir N Patel; Michael A Klufas; Michael C Ryan; Karyn E Jonas; Susan Ostmo; Maria Ana Martinez-Castellanos; Audina M Berrocal; Michael F Chiang; R V Paul Chan Journal: Am J Ophthalmol Date: 2015-01-28 Impact factor: 5.258
Authors: J Peter Campbell; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Deniz Erdogmus; Peng Tian; Dharanish Kedarisetti; Chace Moleta; James D Reynolds; Kelly Hutcheson; Michael J Shapiro; Michael X Repka; Philip Ferrone; Kimberly Drenser; Jason Horowitz; Kemal Sonmez; Ryan Swan; Susan Ostmo; Karyn E Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2016-08-31 Impact factor: 12.079
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: 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: Graham E Quinn; Anna Ells; Antonio Capone; G Baker Hubbard; Ebenezer Daniel; P Lloyd Hildebrand; Gui-Shuang Ying Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2016-11-01 Impact factor: 7.389