Article Text

other Versions

PDF
Wide-Field Digital Retinal Imaging versus Binocular Indirect Ophthalmoscopy for Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening – a Two Observer Prospective, Randomised Comparison.
  1. Catharine Dhaliwal (cdhaliwa{at}staffmail.ed.ac.uk),
  2. Elizabeth Wright (liz.w{at}cybase.co.uk),
  3. Catriona Graham (c.graham{at}ed.ac.uk),
  4. Neil McIntosh (nmc{at}staffmail.ed.ac.uk),
  5. Brian W Fleck (brian.fleck{at}luht.scot.nhs.uk)
  1. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  2. Edinburgh Royal Infirmary, United Kingdom
  3. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  4. University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom
  5. Princess Alexandra Eye Pavilion Edinburgh, United Kingdom

    Abstract

    Aim: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Wide-Field Digital Retinal Imaging (WFDRI) to the current ‘gold standard’ of binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) screening examinations.

    Methods: A consecutive series of premature infants undergoing ROP screening at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary were eligible for recruitment into this prospective, randomised, comparative study. Infants were screened using both WFDRI (Retcam II with neonatal lens, Clarity Medical Systems, Pleasanton, CA) and BIO by two paediatric ophthalmologists who were randomised to the examination technique. Both examiners documented their clinical findings and management plans in a masked fashion. WFDRI eye findings were compared to those of BIO.

    Results: A total of 81 infants were recruited, and information from 245 eye examinations was analysed. The sensitivity of WFDRI in detecting any stage of ROP, stage 3 ROP and ‘plus’ disease was 60%, 57%, 78% respectively and specificity 91%, 98%, 98% respectively. The proportional agreement between WFDRI and BIO was 0.96 for detecting stage 3 disease and 0.98 for detecting ‘plus’ disease. There was very good agreement on management decisions (kappa value 0.85).

    Conclusion: When used in a routine ROP screening setting, a randomised comparison of WFDRI and BIO, WFDRI showed relatively poor sensitivity in detecting mild forms of ROP in the retinal periphery. This resulted in difficulty in making decisions to discharge infants from the screening program. Sensitivity was better for more severe forms of ROP, but at present WFDRI should be regarded as an adjunct to, rather than a replacement for BIO in routine ROP screening.

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Linked Articles

    • At a glance
      Harminder S Dua Arun D Singh