Accuracy and reliability of remote retinopathy of prematurity diagnosis

Michael F. Chiang, Jeremy D. Keenan, Justin Starren, Yunling E. Du, William M. Schiff, Gaetano R. Barile, Joan Li, Rose Anne Johnson, Ditte J. Hess, John T. Flynn

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

110 Scopus citations


Objective: To determine the accuracy and reliability of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) diagnosis using remote review of digital images by 3 masked ophthalmologist readers. Methods: An atlas was compiled of 410 retinal photographs from 163 eyes of 64 low-birth-weight infants taken using a wide-angle digital fundus camera. All the images were independently reviewed by 3 readers, and the diagnosis in each eye was classified into 1 of 4 ordinal categories: no ROP, mild ROP, type 2 prethreshold ROP, or ROP requiring treatment. Findings were compared with a reference standard of dilated indirect ophthalmoscopy with scleral depression performed by an experienced pediatric ophthalmologist. Results: Sensitivities/specificities of the diagnosis of any ROP were 0.845/0.910 for the first reader, 0.816/0.955 for the second reader, and 0.864/0.493 for the third reader. Sensitivities/specificities of the diagnosis of ROP requiring treatment were 0.850/0.960 for the first reader, 0.850/0.973 for the second reader, and 0.900/0.953 for the third reader. When ROP was classified into ordinal categories, the overall weighted κ for interreader reliability was 0.743. Intrareader reliability for detection of low-risk prethreshold ROP or worse was 100% for all readers. Conclusion: The accuracy, interreader reliability, and intrareader reliability of remote diagnosis of clinically relevant ROP based on digital imaging are substantial.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)322-327
Number of pages6
JournalArchives of ophthalmology
Issue number3
StatePublished - Mar 2006
Externally publishedYes

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Ophthalmology


Dive into the research topics of 'Accuracy and reliability of remote retinopathy of prematurity diagnosis'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this