Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To examine the influence of fluorescein angiography (FA) on the diagnosis and management of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Design Prospective cohort study. Participants Nine recognized ROP experts (3 pediatric ophthalmologists and 6 retina specialists) interpreted 32 sets (16 color fundus photographs and 16 color fundus photographs paired with the corresponding FA images) of wide-angle retinal images from infants with ROP. Methods All experts independently reviewed the 32 image sets on a secure website and provided a diagnosis and management plan for the case presented, first based on color fundus photographs alone, and then based on color fundus photographs and corresponding FA images. Main Outcome Measures Sensitivity and specificity of the ROP diagnosis (zone, stage, plus disease, and category, i.e., no ROP, mild ROP, type 2 ROP, and ROP requiring treatment) were calculated using a consensus reference standard diagnosis, determined from the diagnosis of the color fundus photographs by 3 experienced readers in combination with the clinical diagnosis based on ophthalmoscopic examination. The κ statistic was used to analyze the average intergrader agreement among experts for the diagnosis of zone, stage, plus disease, and category. Results Addition of FA to color fundus photography resulted in a significant improvement in sensitivity for diagnosis of stage 3 or worse disease (39.8% vs. 74.1%; P = 0.008), type 2 or worse ROP (69.4% vs. 86.8%; P = 0.013), and pre-plus or worse disease (50.5 vs. 62.6%; P = 0.031). There was a nonsignificant trend toward improved sensitivity for diagnosis of ROP requiring treatment (22.2% vs. 40.3%; P = 0.063). Using the κ statistic, addition of FA to color fundus photography significantly improved intergrader agreement for diagnosis of ROP requiring treatment. Addition of FA to color fundus photography did not affect intergrader agreement significantly for the diagnosis of stage, zone, or plus disease. Conclusions Compared with color fundus photography alone, FA may improve the sensitivity of diagnosis of ROP by experts, particularly for stage 3 disease. In addition, intergrader agreement for diagnosis of ROP requiring treatment may improve with FA interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• PURPOSE: To examine the usefulness of fluorescein angiography (FA) in identifying the macular center and diagnosis of zone in patients with retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). • DESIGN: Validity and reliability analysis of diagnostic tools. • METHODS: Thirty-two sets (16 color fundus photographs and 16 color fundus photographs paired with the corresponding FA images) of wide-angle retinal images obtained from 16 eyes of 8 infants with ROP were compiled on a secure web site. Nine ROP experts (3 pediatric ophthalmologists and 6 vitreoretinal surgeons) participated in the study. For each image set, experts identified the macular center and provided a diagnosis of zone. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Sensitivity and specificity of zone diagnosis and (2) computer-facilitated diagnosis of zone, based on precise measurement of the macular center, optic disc center, and peripheral ROP. • RESULTS: Computer-facilitated diagnosis of zone agreed with the expert's diagnosis of zone in 28 (62%) of 45 cases using color fundus photographs and in 31 (69%) of 45 cases using FA images. Mean (95% confidence interval) sensitivity for detection of zone I by experts compared with a consensus reference standard diagnosis when interpreting the color fundus images alone versus interpreting the color fundus photographs and FA images was 47% (range, 35.3% to 59.3%) and 61.1% (range, 48.9% to 72.4%), respectively (t(9) ≥ (2.063); P = .073). • CONCLUSIONS: There is a marginally significant difference in zone diagnosis when using color fundus photographs compared with using color fundus photographs and the corresponding FA images. There is inconsistency between traditional zone diagnosis (based on ophthalmoscopic examination and image review) compared with a computer-facilitated diagnosis of zone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]