ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2018
Diagnostic Accuracy of Ophthalmoscopy vs Telemedicine in Examinations for Retinopathy of Prematurity.
Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Key factors in a rigorous longitudinal image-based assessment of retinopathy of prematurity.Scientific reports · 2021Trial
- Diagnostic accuracy of a digital fundus photographic system for detection of retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment (ROP-RT).PloS one · 2018Trial
- Cost-Effectiveness of Telemedicine-Based Screening Programs for Retinopathy of Prematurity in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.Ophthalmology science · 2026Article
- Cost-utility analysis of retinopathy of prematurity screening strategies of universal referral, RetCam telemedicine, and direct examination in Iran: a markov model approach.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Analysis of influencing factors for progression from type 2 to type 1 in retinopathy of prematurity.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Use of an Artificial Intelligence-Generated Vascular Severity Score Improved Plus Disease Diagnosis in Retinopathy of Prematurity.Ophthalmology · 2024Article
- Discrepancies in Diagnosis of Treatment-Requiring Retinopathy of Prematurity.Ophthalmology. Retina · 2024Article
- The past, current, and future of neonatal intensive care units with artificial intelligence: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Epidemiologic Evaluation of Retinopathy of Prematurity Severity in a Large Telemedicine Program in India Using Artificial Intelligence.Ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Development and international validation of custom-engineered and code-free deep-learning models for detection of plus disease in retinopathy of prematurity: a retrospective study.The Lancet. Digital health · 2023Article
- External Validation of a Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening Model Using Artificial Intelligence in 3 Low- and Middle-Income Populations.JAMA ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a remote telemedicine platform using a novel handheld fundus camera: Physician and patient perceptions from real-world experience.Journal of the Chinese Medical Association : JCMA · 2022Article
- Article
- Cost-effectiveness of Artificial Intelligence-Based Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening.JAMA ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Using a Facebook Virtual Examination Room to Enhance ROP Training in Armenia.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
- Automated detection of early-stage ROP using a deep convolutional neural network.The British journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Teleophthalmology and Artificial Intelligence As Game Changers in Ophthalmic Care After the COVID-19 Pandemic.Cureus · 2021Review
- Digital technology, tele-medicine and artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: A global perspective.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2021Review
- Auto-Processed Retinal Vessel Shadow View Images From Bedside Optical Coherence Tomography to Evaluate Plus Disease in Retinopathy of Prematurity.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Examinations for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) are typically performed using binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy. Telemedicine studies have traditionally assessed the accuracy of telemedicine compared with ophthalmoscopy as a criterion standard. However, it is not known whether ophthalmoscopy is truly more accurate than telemedicine. Objective: To directly compare the accuracy and sensitivity of ophthalmoscopy vs telemedicine in diagnosing ROP using a consensus reference standard. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter prospective study conducted between July 1, 2011, and November 30, 2014, at 7 neonatal intensive care units and academic ophthalmology departments in the United States and Mexico included 281 premature infants who met the screening criteria for ROP. Exposures: Each examination consisted of 1 eye undergoing binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy by an experienced clinician followed by remote image review of wide-angle fundus photographs by 3 independent telemedicine graders. Main Outcomes and Measures: Results of both examination methods were combined into a consensus reference standard diagnosis. The agreement of both ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine was compared with this standard, using percentage agreement and weighted κ statistics. Results: Among the 281 infants in the study (127 girls and 154 boys; mean [SD] gestational age, 27.1 [2.4] weeks), a total of 1553 eye examinations were classified using both ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine. Ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine each had similar sensitivity for zone I disease (78% [95% CI, 71%-84%] vs 78% [95% CI, 73%-83%]; P > .99 [n = 165]), plus disease (74% [95% CI, 61%-87%] vs 79% [95% CI, 72%-86%]; P = .41 [n = 50]), and type 2 ROP (stage 3, zone I, or plus disease: 86% [95% CI, 80%-92%] vs 79% [95% CI, 75%-83%]; P = .10 [n = 251]), but ophthalmoscopy was slightly more sensitive in identifying stage 3 disease (85% [95% CI, 79%-91%] vs 73% [95% CI, 67%-78%]; P = .004 [n = 136]). Conclusions and Relevance: No difference was found in overall accuracy between ophthalmoscopy and telemedicine for the detection of clinically significant ROP, although, on average, ophthalmoscopy had slightly higher accuracy for the diagnosis of zone III and stage 3 ROP. With the caveat that there was variable accuracy between examiners using both modalities, these results support the use of telemedicine for the diagnosis of clinically significant ROP.
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.