Inter-expert and intra-expert agreement on the diagnosis and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity.

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

To evaluate inter-expert and intra-expert agreement on the diagnosis and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).

Related collections

Most cited references 20

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Revised indications for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity: results of the early treatment for retinopathy of prematurity randomized trial.

Early Treatment For Retinopathy Of Prematurity Cooperative Group (2003)

To determine whether earlier treatment using ablation of the avascular retina in high-risk prethreshold retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) results in improved grating visual acuity and retinal structural outcomes compared with conventional treatment. Infants with bilateral high-risk prethreshold ROP (n = 317) had one eye randomized to early treatment with the fellow eye managed conventionally (control eye). In asymmetric cases (n = 84), the eye with high-risk prethreshold ROP was randomized to early treatment or conventional management. High risk was determined using a model based on the Multicenter Trial of Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity natural history cohort. At a corrected age of 9 months, visual acuity was assessed by masked testers using the Teller acuity card procedure. At corrected ages of 6 and 9 months, eyes were examined for structural outcome. Outcomes for the 2 treatment groups of eyes were compared using chi2 analysis, combining data for bilateral and asymmetric cases. Grating acuity results showed a reduction in unfavorable visual acuity outcomes with earlier treatment, from 19.5% to 14.5% (P =.01). Unfavorable structural outcomes were reduced from 15.6% to 9.1% (P<.001) at 9 months. Further analysis supported retinal ablative therapy for eyes with type 1 ROP, defined as zone I, any stage ROP with plus disease (a degree of dilation and tortuosity of the posterior retinal blood vessels meeting or exceeding that of a standard photograph); zone I, stage 3 ROP without plus disease; or zone II, stage 2 or 3 ROP with plus disease. The analysis supported a wait-and-watch approach to type 2 ROP, defined as zone I, stage 1 or 2 ROP without plus disease or zone II, stage 3 ROP without plus disease. These eyes should be considered for treatment only if they progress to type 1 or threshold ROP. Early treatment of high-risk prethreshold ROP significantly reduced unfavorable outcomes to a clinically important degree. Additional analyses led to modified recommendations for the use of peripheral retinal ablation in eyes with ROP. Long-term follow-up is being conducted to learn whether the benefits noted in the first year after birth will persist into childhood.

0 comments Cited 430 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Interexpert agreement of plus disease diagnosis in retinopathy of prematurity.

John J. Flynn, R Gelman, Lei Jiang … (2007)

To measure agreement of plus disease diagnosis among retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) experts. 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. In the 3-level categorization, all experts agreed on the same diagnosis in 4 of 34 images (12%), and the mean weighted kappa 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 kappa 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%). 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.