ArticleIndian journal of pediatrics2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Pediatrician-performed Digital Retinal Imaging with 3nethra neo for ROP Screening.
Article in Indian journal of pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Association of early oxygen therapy parameters with retinopathy of prematurity stages in preterm infants with respiratory distress syndrome: a gestational age-stratified analysis.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Accuracy of Pediatrician-performed Digital Retinal Imaging with 3nethra neo for ROP Screening: Authors' Reply.Indian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Building a Future without Blindness due to Retinopathy of Prematurity in India: Progress, Challenges, and the Way Forward.Indian pediatrics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of pediatrician-performed wide-field digital retinal imaging (WFDRI) for diagnosing Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), as compared to binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) as the reference standard.
methodsEligible infants undergoing ROP screening were enrolled consecutively. BIO was performed by trained ophthalmologists, followed by WFDRI (using "3nethra neo" camera) by a pediatrician. An expert pediatric ophthalmologist reviewed de-identified images for quality, presence, and severity of ROP. She was masked to the findings of BIO and the pediatrician. Diagnostic accuracy for detecting any ROP, ROP requiring treatment (Type 1), and ROP requiring referral (Type 1 or 2) were calculated for WFDRI, considering BIO as the reference standard.
resultsThe analysis included 427 eyes. The sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), diagnostic accuracy, and diagnostic odds ratio of WFDRI were 0.88 (95% CI: 0.81, 0.93), 0.89 (0.85, 0.92), 7.8 (5.7, 10.9), 0.14 (0.09, 0.21), 0.89 (0.85, 0.91), and 58.3 (31, 110) respectively for detection of 'any ROP'. For detecting ROP requiring treatment (Type 1), the sensitivity, specificity, NLR, and diagnostic accuracy were 0.90 (0.75, 0.97), 1.00 (0.99, 1.00), 0.11 (0.04, 0.27), and 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) respectively. For ROP requiring referral, the sensitivity, specificity, NLR, and diagnostic accuracy of pediatrician-performed WFDRI were 0.92 (0.80, 0.98), 1.00 (0.99, 1.00), 0.08 (0.03, 0.21), and 0.99 (0.98, 1.00) respectively. No serious adverse events were noted. The pediatrician and ophthalmologist had a near-perfect (k-1.00) and strong (k-0.88) agreement for ROP requiring treatment and any ROP, respectively.
conclusionsPediatrician-performed WFDRI is feasible, safe, and has excellent diagnostic accuracy for identifying ROP requiring treatment.
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.