Observational studyJournal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society2025
Agreement and Accuracy of Papilledema and Pseudopapilledema Classification Among Pediatric Neuro-Ophthalmologists Using Optic Disc Photographs.
Observational study in Journal of neuro-ophthalmology : the official journal of the North American Neuro-Ophthalmology Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSerial fundus photography is commonly used to differentiate between papilledema and pseudopapilledema, but there are limited data on the interrater reliability and accuracy of interpreting these images in children. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the agreement and accuracy of pediatric neuro-ophthalmologists in classifying fundus photographs of children with papilledema and pseudopapilledema.
methodsFor this cross-sectional study, 3 masked experts (pediatric neuro-ophthalmologists) classified a multicenter image collection from children with a clinical diagnosis of either papilledema or pseudopapilledema, which was determined based on the results of history, examination, ancillary ophthalmic imaging, neuroimaging, and/or lumbar puncture. Fleiss kappa (κ) was calculated to assess interrater agreement; accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to determine expert performance. Subgroup analyses according to papilledema grade and expert certainty were performed.
resultsSix hundred fifty-nine photographs from 171 children were included. The full data set, papilledema, and pseudopapilledema κ values were 0.36 (0.32-0.42), 0.40 (0.32-0.49), and 0.28 (0.22-0.34), respectively. Accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity ranged from 58.9% to 63.9%, 54.3% to 76.0%, and 56.1% to 62.6%, respectively, among the 3 experts. Grade 1 papilledema was associated with inaccurate agreement (misinterpretation as pseudopapilledema by all 3 experts) in 31.8% and disagreement in 59.0% of cases. Higher grades of papilledema were associated with higher rates of accurate agreement. All experts achieved high sensitivity in classifying photographs of moderate-to-high-grade papilledema (85%-94%).
conclusionsOverall agreement was low among pediatric neuro-ophthalmologists when classifying fundus photographs of children with papilledema and pseudopapilledema. When interpreting low-grade papilledema images, inaccurate agreement and disagreement were more likely than accurate agreement among experts. Our study highlights the limitations of interpreting fundus photographs of children with papilledema and pseudopapilledema in isolation, stressing the importance of obtaining a complete neuro-ophthalmologic history and examination, as well as other ancillary ophthalmic imaging, to guide decision making regarding systemic workup.
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.