Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity

for the Imaging & Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Research Consortium

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

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 ? 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)498-504
Number of pages7
JournalJAMA Ophthalmology
Volume136
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2018

Fingerprint

Ophthalmoscopy
Retinopathy of Prematurity
Telemedicine
Neonatal Intensive Care Units
Ophthalmology
Mexico
Premature Infants
Gestational Age
Multicenter Studies
Prospective Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

for the Imaging & Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Research Consortium (2018). Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity. JAMA Ophthalmology, 136(5), 498-504. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0649

Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity. / for the Imaging & Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Research Consortium.

In: JAMA Ophthalmology, Vol. 136, No. 5, 01.05.2018, p. 498-504.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

for the Imaging & Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Research Consortium 2018, 'Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity', JAMA Ophthalmology, vol. 136, no. 5, pp. 498-504. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0649
for the Imaging & Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Research Consortium. Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity. JAMA Ophthalmology. 2018 May 1;136(5):498-504. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0649
for the Imaging & Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Research Consortium. / Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity. In: JAMA Ophthalmology. 2018 ; Vol. 136, No. 5. pp. 498-504.
@article{84c5590c48aa48b2aac79e8f0b46f533,
title = "Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity",
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 ? 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.",
author = "{for the Imaging & Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Research Consortium} and Hilal Biten and Redd, {Travis K.} and Chace Moleta and John Campbell and Susan Ostmo and Karyn Jonas and {Paul Chan}, {R. V.} and Michael Chiang",
year = "2018",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0649",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "136",
pages = "498--504",
journal = "JAMA Ophthalmology",
issn = "2168-6165",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Diagnostic accuracy of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in examinations for retinopathy of prematurity

AU - for the Imaging & Informatics in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Research Consortium

AU - Biten, Hilal

AU - Redd, Travis K.

AU - Moleta, Chace

AU - Campbell, John

AU - Ostmo, Susan

AU - Jonas, Karyn

AU - Paul Chan, R. V.

AU - Chiang, Michael

PY - 2018/5/1

Y1 - 2018/5/1

N2 - 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 ? 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.

AB - 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 ? 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85047081301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85047081301&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0649

DO - 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.0649

M3 - Article

VL - 136

SP - 498

EP - 504

JO - JAMA Ophthalmology

JF - JAMA Ophthalmology

SN - 2168-6165

IS - 5

ER -