ArticleJournal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus2018
Single grading vs double grading with adjudication in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity (e-ROP) study.
Article in Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chest X-Ray-Based Telemedicine Platform for Pediatric Tuberculosis Diagnosis in Low-Resource Settings: Development and Validation Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2024Article
- Progression from preplus to plus disease in the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-Phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) Study: incidence, timing, and predictors.Journal of AAPOS : the official publication of the American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo 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.
methodsSecondary 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.
resultsOf 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.
conclusionsThere is a small but significant decrease in the sensitivity and specificity for RW-ROP when single-reader grading is compared to double adjudicated grading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.