ArticleJournal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus
Characterization of Errors in Retinopathy of Prematurity Diagnosis by Ophthalmologists-in-Training in the United States and Canada.
Article in Journal of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence and associated factors of retinopathy of prematurity in sub‑Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta‑analysis.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Retinopathy of prematurity training and education: A systematic review.Survey of ophthalmologyPooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo identify the prominent factors that lead to misdiagnosis of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) by ophthalmologists-in-training in the United States and Canada.
methodsThis prospective cohort study included 32 ophthalmologists-in-training at six ophthalmology training programs in the United States and Canada. Twenty web-based cases of ROP using wide-field retinal images were presented, and ophthalmologists-in-training were asked to diagnose plus disease, zone, stage, and category for each eye. Responses were compared to a consensus reference standard diagnosis for accuracy, which was established by combining the clinical diagnosis and the image-based diagnosis by multiple experts. The types of diagnostic errors that occurred were analyzed with descriptive and chi-squared analysis. Main outcome measures were frequency of types (category, zone, stage, plus disease) of diagnostic errors; association of errors in zone, stage, and plus disease diagnosis with incorrectly identified category; and performance of ophthalmologists-in-training across postgraduate years.
resultsCategory of ROP was misdiagnosed at a rate of 48%. Errors in classification of plus disease were most commonly associated with misdiagnosis of treatment-requiring (plus error rate = 16% when treatment-requiring was correctly diagnosed vs 81% when underdiagnosed as type 2 or pre-plus; mean difference: 64.3; 95% CI: 51.9 to 76.7;
conclusionsOphthalmologists-in-training in the United States and Canada misdiagnosed ROP nearly half of the time, with incorrect identification of plus disease as a leading cause. Integration of structured learning for ROP in residency education may improve diagnostic competency.
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.