TY - JOUR
T1 - Single grading vs double grading with adjudication in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity (e-ROP) study
AU - the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) Cooperative Group
AU - Daniel, Ebenezer
AU - Pan, Wei
AU - Quinn, Graham E.
AU - Smith, Eli
AU - Baumritter, Agnieshka
AU - Ying, Gui Shuang
AU - Quinn, Graham E.
AU - Wade, Kelly
AU - Baumritter, Agnieshka
AU - Duros, Trang B.
AU - Erbring, Lisa
AU - Repka, Michael X.
AU - Shepard, Jennifer A.
AU - Emmert, David
AU - Herring, C. Mark
AU - VanderVeen, Deborah
AU - Johnston, Suzanne
AU - Wu, Carolyn
AU - Mantagos, Jason
AU - Ledoux, Danielle
AU - Winter, Tamar
AU - Weng, Frank
AU - Mansfield, Theresa
AU - Bremer, Don L.
AU - McGregor, Mary Lou
AU - Jordan, Catherine Olson
AU - Rogers, David L.
AU - Fellows, Rae R.
AU - Brandt, Suzanne
AU - Mann, Brenda
AU - Wallace, David
AU - Freedman, Sharon
AU - Jones, Sarah K.
AU - Tran-Viet, Du
AU - Young, Rhonda “Michelle”
AU - Barr, Charles C.
AU - Bhola, Rahul
AU - Douglas, Craig
AU - Fishman, Peggy
AU - Bottorff, Michelle
AU - Hubbuch, Brandi
AU - Keith, Rachel
AU - Bothun, Erick D.
AU - DeBecker, Inge
AU - Anderson, Jill
AU - Holleschau, Ann Marie
AU - Miller, Nichole E.
AU - Nyquist, Darla N.
AU - Siatkowski, R. Michael
AU - Trigler, Lucas
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2017 American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus
PY - 2018/2
Y1 - 2018/2
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85042656313&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85042656313&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.09.005
DO - 10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.09.005
M3 - Article
C2 - 29274372
AN - SCOPUS:85042656313
SN - 1091-8531
VL - 22
SP - 32
EP - 37
JO - Journal of AAPOS
JF - Journal of AAPOS
IS - 1
ER -