TY - JOUR
T1 - Interexpert agreement of plus disease diagnosis in retinopathy of prematurity
AU - Chiang, Michael F.
AU - Jiang, Lei
AU - Gelman, Rony
AU - Du, Yunling E.
AU - Flynn, John T.
PY - 2007/7
Y1 - 2007/7
N2 - Objective: To measure agreement of plus disease diagnosis among retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) experts. Methods: A set of 34 wide-angle retinal photographs from infants with ROP was compiled on a secure Web site and was interpreted independently by 22 recognized ROP experts. Diagnostic agreement was analyzed using 3-level (plus, pre-plus, or neither) and 2-level (plus or not plus) categorizations. Results: In the 3-level categorization, all experts agreed on the same diagnosis in 4 of 34 images (12%), and the mean weighted κ statistic for each expert compared with all others was between 0.21 and 0.40 (fair agreement) for 7 experts (32%) and between 0.41 and 0.60 (moderate agreement) for 15 experts (68%). In the 2-level categorization, all experts who provided a diagnosis agreed in 7 of 34 images (21%), and the mean κ statistic for each expert compared with all others was between 0 and 0.20 (slight agreement) for 1 expert (5%), between 0.21 and 0.40 (fair agreement) for 3 experts (14%), between 0.41 and 0.60 (moderate agreement) for 12 experts (55%), and between 0.61 and 0.80 (substantial agreement) for 6 experts (27%). Conclusions: Interexpert agreement of plus disease diagnosis is imperfect. This may have important implications for clinical ROP management, continued refinement of the international ROP classification system, development of computer-based diagnostic algorithms, and implementation of ROP telemedicine systems.
AB - Objective: To measure agreement of plus disease diagnosis among retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) experts. Methods: A set of 34 wide-angle retinal photographs from infants with ROP was compiled on a secure Web site and was interpreted independently by 22 recognized ROP experts. Diagnostic agreement was analyzed using 3-level (plus, pre-plus, or neither) and 2-level (plus or not plus) categorizations. Results: In the 3-level categorization, all experts agreed on the same diagnosis in 4 of 34 images (12%), and the mean weighted κ statistic for each expert compared with all others was between 0.21 and 0.40 (fair agreement) for 7 experts (32%) and between 0.41 and 0.60 (moderate agreement) for 15 experts (68%). In the 2-level categorization, all experts who provided a diagnosis agreed in 7 of 34 images (21%), and the mean κ statistic for each expert compared with all others was between 0 and 0.20 (slight agreement) for 1 expert (5%), between 0.21 and 0.40 (fair agreement) for 3 experts (14%), between 0.41 and 0.60 (moderate agreement) for 12 experts (55%), and between 0.61 and 0.80 (substantial agreement) for 6 experts (27%). Conclusions: Interexpert agreement of plus disease diagnosis is imperfect. This may have important implications for clinical ROP management, continued refinement of the international ROP classification system, development of computer-based diagnostic algorithms, and implementation of ROP telemedicine systems.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34447505167&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34447505167&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1001/archopht.125.7.875
DO - 10.1001/archopht.125.7.875
M3 - Article
C2 - 17620564
AN - SCOPUS:34447505167
SN - 2168-6165
VL - 125
SP - 875
EP - 880
JO - JAMA Ophthalmology
JF - JAMA Ophthalmology
IS - 7
ER -