Single grading vs double grading with adjudication in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity (e-ROP) study

the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) Cooperative Group

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

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. [Figure presented]

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)32-37
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of AAPOS
Volume22
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2018
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Retinopathy of Prematurity
Telemedicine
Sensitivity and Specificity
Referral and Consultation
Birth Weight
ROP
Reading

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pediatrics, Perinatology, and Child Health
  • Ophthalmology

Cite this

Single grading vs double grading with adjudication in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity (e-ROP) study. / the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) Cooperative Group.

In: Journal of AAPOS, Vol. 22, No. 1, 01.02.2018, p. 32-37.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) Cooperative Group 2018, 'Single grading vs double grading with adjudication in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity (e-ROP) study', Journal of AAPOS, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.09.005
the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) Cooperative Group. / Single grading vs double grading with adjudication in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity (e-ROP) study. In: Journal of AAPOS. 2018 ; Vol. 22, No. 1. pp. 32-37.
@article{7b8cadd9b6a3452494205a34439cbdca,
title = "Single grading vs double grading with adjudication in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity (e-ROP) study",
abstract = "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. [Figure presented]",
author = "{the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) Cooperative Group} and Ebenezer Daniel and Wei Pan and Quinn, {Graham E.} and Eli Smith and Agnieshka Baumritter and Ying, {Gui Shuang} and Quinn, {Graham E.} and Kelly Wade and Agnieshka Baumritter and Duros, {Trang B.} and Lisa Erbring and Repka, {Michael X.} and Shepard, {Jennifer A.} and David Emmert and Herring, {C. Mark} and Deborah VanderVeen and Suzanne Johnston and Carolyn Wu and Jason Mantagos and Danielle Ledoux and Tamar Winter and Frank Weng and Theresa Mansfield and Bremer, {Don L.} and McGregor, {Mary Lou} and Jordan, {Catherine Olson} and Rogers, {David L.} and Fellows, {Rae R.} and Suzanne Brandt and Brenda Mann and Wallace, {David K.} and Sharon Freedman and Jones, {Sarah K.} and Du Tran-Viet and Young, {Rhonda “Michelle”} and Barr, {Charles C.} and Rahul Bhola and Craig Douglas and Peggy Fishman and Michelle Bottorff and Brandi Hubbuch and Rachel Keith and Bothun, {Erick D.} and Inge DeBecker and Jill Anderson and Holleschau, {Ann Marie} and Miller, {Nichole E.} and Nyquist, {Darla N.} and Siatkowski, {R. Michael} and Lucas Trigler",
year = "2018",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.09.005",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "22",
pages = "32--37",
journal = "Journal of AAPOS",
issn = "1091-8531",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

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 K.

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

PY - 2018/2/1

Y1 - 2018/2/1

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. [Figure presented]

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. [Figure presented]

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

VL - 22

SP - 32

EP - 37

JO - Journal of AAPOS

JF - Journal of AAPOS

SN - 1091-8531

IS - 1

ER -