Hilal Biten1, Travis K Redd1, Chace Moleta1, J Peter Campbell1, Susan Ostmo1, Karyn Jonas2, R V Paul Chan2,3, Michael F Chiang1,4. 1. Department of Ophthalmology, Casey Eye Institute, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland. 2. Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Illinois Eye and Ear Infirmary, University of Illinois at Chicago. 3. Center for Global Health, College of Medicine, University of Illinois at Chicago. 4. Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland.
Abstract
Importance: Examinations for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) are typically performed using binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy. Telemedicine studies have traditionally assessed the accuracy of telemedicine compared with ophthalmoscopy as a criterion standard. However, it is not known whether ophthalmoscopy is truly more accurate than telemedicine. Objective: To directly compare the accuracy and sensitivity of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in diagnosing ROP using a consensus reference standard. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective study conducted between July 1, 2011, and November 30, 2014, at 7 neonatal intensive care units and academic ophthalmology departments in the United States and Mexico included 281 premature infants who met the screening criteria for ROP. Exposures: Each examination consisted of 1 eye undergoing binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy by an experienced clinician followed by remote image review of wide-angle fundus photographs by 3 independent telemedicine graders. Main Outcomes and Measures: Results of both examination methods were combined into a consensus reference standard diagnosis. The agreement of both ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine was compared with this standard, using percentage agreement and weighted κ statistics. Results: Among the 281 infants in the study (127 girls and 154 boys; mean [SD] gestational age, 27.1 [2.4] weeks), a total of 1553 eye examinations were classified using both ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine. Ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine each had similar sensitivity for zone I disease (78% [95% CI, 71%-84%] vs 78% [95% CI, 73%-83%]; P > .99 [n = 165]), plus disease (74% [95% CI, 61%-87%] vs 79% [95% CI, 72%-86%]; P = .41 [n = 50]), and type 2 ROP (stage 3, zone I, or plus disease: 86% [95% CI, 80%-92%] vs 79% [95% CI, 75%-83%]; P = .10 [n = 251]), but ophthalmoscopy was slightly more sensitive in identifying stage 3 disease (85% [95% CI, 79%-91%] vs 73% [95% CI, 67%-78%]; P = .004 [n = 136]). Conclusions and Relevance: No difference was found in overall accuracy between ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine for the detection of clinically significant ROP, although, on average, ophthalmoscopy had slightly higher accuracy for the diagnosis of zone III and stage 3 ROP. With the caveat that there was variable accuracy between examiners using both modalities, these results support the use of telemedicine for the diagnosis of clinically significant ROP.
Importance: Examinations for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) are typically performed using binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy. Telemedicine studies have traditionally assessed the accuracy of telemedicine compared with ophthalmoscopy as a criterion standard. However, it is not known whether ophthalmoscopy is truly more accurate than telemedicine. Objective: To directly compare the accuracy and sensitivity of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in diagnosing ROP using a consensus reference standard. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective study conducted between July 1, 2011, and November 30, 2014, at 7 neonatal intensive care units and academic ophthalmology departments in the United States and Mexico included 281 premature infants who met the screening criteria for ROP. Exposures: Each examination consisted of 1 eye undergoing binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy by an experienced clinician followed by remote image review of wide-angle fundus photographs by 3 independent telemedicine graders. Main Outcomes and Measures: Results of both examination methods were combined into a consensus reference standard diagnosis. The agreement of both ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine was compared with this standard, using percentage agreement and weighted κ statistics. Results: Among the 281 infants in the study (127 girls and 154 boys; mean [SD] gestational age, 27.1 [2.4] weeks), a total of 1553 eye examinations were classified using both ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine. Ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine each had similar sensitivity for zone I disease (78% [95% CI, 71%-84%] vs 78% [95% CI, 73%-83%]; P > .99 [n = 165]), plus disease (74% [95% CI, 61%-87%] vs 79% [95% CI, 72%-86%]; P = .41 [n = 50]), and type 2 ROP (stage 3, zone I, or plus disease: 86% [95% CI, 80%-92%] vs 79% [95% CI, 75%-83%]; P = .10 [n = 251]), but ophthalmoscopy was slightly more sensitive in identifying stage 3 disease (85% [95% CI, 79%-91%] vs 73% [95% CI, 67%-78%]; P = .004 [n = 136]). Conclusions and Relevance: No difference was found in overall accuracy between ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine for the detection of clinically significant ROP, although, on average, ophthalmoscopy had slightly higher accuracy for the diagnosis of zone III and stage 3 ROP. With the caveat that there was variable accuracy between examiners using both modalities, these results support the use of telemedicine for the diagnosis of clinically significant ROP.
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; Michele Melia; Angela N Buffenn; Scott R Lambert; Franco M Recchia; Jennifer L Simpson; Michael B Yang Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 12.079
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: 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: 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: Esra Ataer-Cansizoglu; Veronica Bolon-Canedo; J Peter Campbell; Alican Bozkurt; Deniz Erdogmus; Jayashree Kalpathy-Cramer; Samir Patel; Karyn Jonas; R V Paul Chan; Susan Ostmo; Michael F Chiang Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2015-11-30 Impact factor: 3.283
Authors: Steven L Morrison; Dmitry Dukhovny; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang; J Peter Campbell Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2022-04-01 Impact factor: 8.253
Authors: Lorena M Haefeli; Luiza M Neves; Andrea Zin; Ana Carolina Carioca Costa; Zilton Farias Meira de Vasconcelos; Marcia Pinto Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 3.006
Authors: Mark B Horton; Christopher J Brady; Jerry Cavallerano; Michael Abramoff; Gail Barker; Michael F Chiang; Charlene H Crockett; Seema Garg; Peter Karth; Yao Liu; Clark D Newman; Siddarth Rathi; Veeral Sheth; Paolo Silva; Kristen Stebbins; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-03-25 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Tapan P Patel; Michael T Aaberg; Yannis M Paulus; Philip Lieu; Vaidehi S Dedania; Cynthia X Qian; Cagri G Besirli; Todd Margolis; Daniel A Fletcher; Tyson N Kim Journal: Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol Date: 2019-09-09 Impact factor: 3.117
Authors: Kai R Seely; Kira L Wang; Vincent Tai; S Grace Prakalapakorn; Stephanie J Chiu; Christian Viehland; Sara Grace; Joseph A Izatt; Sharon F Freedman; Cynthia A Toth Journal: Transl Vis Sci Technol Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 3.283
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