Alternative methods for the screening of retinopathy of prematurity: binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy vs wide-field digital retinal imaging
Purpose To compare the diagnostic efficacy of wide-field digital retinal imaging (WFDRI) with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening. Methods Premature infants admitted for ROP screening were included in this prospective, randomized and double-blind co...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Eye (London) 2013-09, Vol.27 (9), p.1053-1057 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1057 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 9 |
| container_start_page | 1053 |
| container_title | Eye (London) |
| container_volume | 27 |
| creator | Sekeroglu, M A Hekimoglu, E Sekeroglu, H T Arslan, U |
| description | Purpose
To compare the diagnostic efficacy of wide-field digital retinal imaging (WFDRI) with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening.
Methods
Premature infants admitted for ROP screening were included in this prospective, randomized and double-blind comparative study. They were examined by using BIO and WFDRI.
Results
A total of 58 infants were enrolled in the study. The sensitivities of WFDRI in detecting any stage of ROP, treatment-requiring ROP and plus disease were 58.6, 100, and 100% respectively, with a specificity of 100% for all. The proportional agreement between WFDRI and BIO was 0.903 for detection of any stage of ROP, 1.0 for treatment-requiring ROP, and 1.0 for plus disease.
Conclusion
The sensitivity and specificity of WFDRI was excellent for the diagnosis of severe and treatment-requiring ROP. However, BIO was superior in mild ROP particularly for the ones in retinal periphery. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1038/eye.2013.128 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3772362</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1439221176</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-caba7b926173f6f85203a6423516704dfd831f391c11b8cddf311aa037d39d9c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkk2L1TAUhoMoznV051oCblzYaz7apnUhDINfMOBGwV1Ik5M2Q9vUJL3S_-CPNtc7DqO4cHU4vA_vOYfzIvSUkj0lvHkFG-wZoXxPWXMP7Wgp6qIqq_I-2pG2IgVj7OsZehTjNSFZFOQhOmNc1GXb0h36cTEmCLNK7gB4gjR4E7H1AacBcNQBYHZzj73FAZKb_aLSsB3bJcCk0hpc2l7jLit6HVXAbjYugE7YL0Ma1Dj5qP2y4UPE352BwjoYDTaud0mNJ89c3aT6POYxemDVGOHJTT1HX969_Xz5obj69P7j5cVVocuGp0KrTomuZTUV3Na2qRjhqi4Zr2gtSGmsaTi1vKWa0q7RxlhOqVKEC8Nb02p-jt6cfJe1m8BomFNQo1xC3iNs0isn_1RmN8jeHyQXgvGaZYMXNwbBf1shJjm5qGEc1Qx-jZKWvGWMUlH_D8pqxnjbZPT5X-i1X_Nvxl8UbZmgpMzUyxOlg48xgL3dmxJ5TITMiZDHRMiciIw_u3vrLfw7AhkoTkDM0txDuDP1X4Y_AQYpxCQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1431927104</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Alternative methods for the screening of retinopathy of prematurity: binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy vs wide-field digital retinal imaging</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Sekeroglu, M A ; Hekimoglu, E ; Sekeroglu, H T ; Arslan, U</creator><creatorcontrib>Sekeroglu, M A ; Hekimoglu, E ; Sekeroglu, H T ; Arslan, U</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To compare the diagnostic efficacy of wide-field digital retinal imaging (WFDRI) with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening.
Methods
Premature infants admitted for ROP screening were included in this prospective, randomized and double-blind comparative study. They were examined by using BIO and WFDRI.
Results
A total of 58 infants were enrolled in the study. The sensitivities of WFDRI in detecting any stage of ROP, treatment-requiring ROP and plus disease were 58.6, 100, and 100% respectively, with a specificity of 100% for all. The proportional agreement between WFDRI and BIO was 0.903 for detection of any stage of ROP, 1.0 for treatment-requiring ROP, and 1.0 for plus disease.
Conclusion
The sensitivity and specificity of WFDRI was excellent for the diagnosis of severe and treatment-requiring ROP. However, BIO was superior in mild ROP particularly for the ones in retinal periphery.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0950-222X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5454</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1038/eye.2013.128</identifier><identifier>PMID: 23764991</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London: Nature Publishing Group UK</publisher><subject>692/699 ; 692/700/139 ; 692/700/1720 ; Clinical Study ; Double-Blind Method ; Female ; Humans ; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods ; Infant, Newborn ; Laboratory Medicine ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Neonatal Screening - methods ; Ophthalmology ; Ophthalmoscopy - methods ; Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology ; Photography ; Prospective Studies ; Retinopathy of Prematurity - diagnosis ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Surgery ; Surgical Oncology</subject><ispartof>Eye (London), 2013-09, Vol.27 (9), p.1053-1057</ispartof><rights>Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2013</rights><rights>Copyright Nature Publishing Group Sep 2013</rights><rights>Copyright © 2013 Royal College of Ophthalmologists 2013 Royal College of Ophthalmologists</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-caba7b926173f6f85203a6423516704dfd831f391c11b8cddf311aa037d39d9c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-caba7b926173f6f85203a6423516704dfd831f391c11b8cddf311aa037d39d9c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772362/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3772362/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,725,778,782,883,27907,27908,41471,42540,51302,53774,53776</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23764991$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Sekeroglu, M A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hekimoglu, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sekeroglu, H T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arslan, U</creatorcontrib><title>Alternative methods for the screening of retinopathy of prematurity: binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy vs wide-field digital retinal imaging</title><title>Eye (London)</title><addtitle>Eye</addtitle><addtitle>Eye (Lond)</addtitle><description>Purpose
To compare the diagnostic efficacy of wide-field digital retinal imaging (WFDRI) with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening.
Methods
Premature infants admitted for ROP screening were included in this prospective, randomized and double-blind comparative study. They were examined by using BIO and WFDRI.
Results
A total of 58 infants were enrolled in the study. The sensitivities of WFDRI in detecting any stage of ROP, treatment-requiring ROP and plus disease were 58.6, 100, and 100% respectively, with a specificity of 100% for all. The proportional agreement between WFDRI and BIO was 0.903 for detection of any stage of ROP, 1.0 for treatment-requiring ROP, and 1.0 for plus disease.
Conclusion
The sensitivity and specificity of WFDRI was excellent for the diagnosis of severe and treatment-requiring ROP. However, BIO was superior in mild ROP particularly for the ones in retinal periphery.</description><subject>692/699</subject><subject>692/700/139</subject><subject>692/700/1720</subject><subject>Clinical Study</subject><subject>Double-Blind Method</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</subject><subject>Infant, Newborn</subject><subject>Laboratory Medicine</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Neonatal Screening - methods</subject><subject>Ophthalmology</subject><subject>Ophthalmoscopy - methods</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology</subject><subject>Photography</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Retinopathy of Prematurity - diagnosis</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Oncology</subject><issn>0950-222X</issn><issn>1476-5454</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkk2L1TAUhoMoznV051oCblzYaz7apnUhDINfMOBGwV1Ik5M2Q9vUJL3S_-CPNtc7DqO4cHU4vA_vOYfzIvSUkj0lvHkFG-wZoXxPWXMP7Wgp6qIqq_I-2pG2IgVj7OsZehTjNSFZFOQhOmNc1GXb0h36cTEmCLNK7gB4gjR4E7H1AacBcNQBYHZzj73FAZKb_aLSsB3bJcCk0hpc2l7jLit6HVXAbjYugE7YL0Ma1Dj5qP2y4UPE352BwjoYDTaud0mNJ89c3aT6POYxemDVGOHJTT1HX969_Xz5obj69P7j5cVVocuGp0KrTomuZTUV3Na2qRjhqi4Zr2gtSGmsaTi1vKWa0q7RxlhOqVKEC8Nb02p-jt6cfJe1m8BomFNQo1xC3iNs0isn_1RmN8jeHyQXgvGaZYMXNwbBf1shJjm5qGEc1Qx-jZKWvGWMUlH_D8pqxnjbZPT5X-i1X_Nvxl8UbZmgpMzUyxOlg48xgL3dmxJ5TITMiZDHRMiciIw_u3vrLfw7AhkoTkDM0txDuDP1X4Y_AQYpxCQ</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Sekeroglu, M A</creator><creator>Hekimoglu, E</creator><creator>Sekeroglu, H T</creator><creator>Arslan, U</creator><general>Nature Publishing Group UK</general><general>Nature Publishing Group</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>Alternative methods for the screening of retinopathy of prematurity: binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy vs wide-field digital retinal imaging</title><author>Sekeroglu, M A ; Hekimoglu, E ; Sekeroglu, H T ; Arslan, U</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c483t-caba7b926173f6f85203a6423516704dfd831f391c11b8cddf311aa037d39d9c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>692/699</topic><topic>692/700/139</topic><topic>692/700/1720</topic><topic>Clinical Study</topic><topic>Double-Blind Method</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods</topic><topic>Infant, Newborn</topic><topic>Laboratory Medicine</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Neonatal Screening - methods</topic><topic>Ophthalmology</topic><topic>Ophthalmoscopy - methods</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology</topic><topic>Photography</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Retinopathy of Prematurity - diagnosis</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Oncology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Sekeroglu, M A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hekimoglu, E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sekeroglu, H T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arslan, U</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Eye (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Sekeroglu, M A</au><au>Hekimoglu, E</au><au>Sekeroglu, H T</au><au>Arslan, U</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Alternative methods for the screening of retinopathy of prematurity: binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy vs wide-field digital retinal imaging</atitle><jtitle>Eye (London)</jtitle><stitle>Eye</stitle><addtitle>Eye (Lond)</addtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>27</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>1053</spage><epage>1057</epage><pages>1053-1057</pages><issn>0950-222X</issn><eissn>1476-5454</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To compare the diagnostic efficacy of wide-field digital retinal imaging (WFDRI) with binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening.
Methods
Premature infants admitted for ROP screening were included in this prospective, randomized and double-blind comparative study. They were examined by using BIO and WFDRI.
Results
A total of 58 infants were enrolled in the study. The sensitivities of WFDRI in detecting any stage of ROP, treatment-requiring ROP and plus disease were 58.6, 100, and 100% respectively, with a specificity of 100% for all. The proportional agreement between WFDRI and BIO was 0.903 for detection of any stage of ROP, 1.0 for treatment-requiring ROP, and 1.0 for plus disease.
Conclusion
The sensitivity and specificity of WFDRI was excellent for the diagnosis of severe and treatment-requiring ROP. However, BIO was superior in mild ROP particularly for the ones in retinal periphery.</abstract><cop>London</cop><pub>Nature Publishing Group UK</pub><pmid>23764991</pmid><doi>10.1038/eye.2013.128</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0950-222X |
| ispartof | Eye (London), 2013-09, Vol.27 (9), p.1053-1057 |
| issn | 0950-222X 1476-5454 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_3772362 |
| source | MEDLINE; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals; PubMed Central |
| subjects | 692/699 692/700/139 692/700/1720 Clinical Study Double-Blind Method Female Humans Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods Infant, Newborn Laboratory Medicine Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Neonatal Screening - methods Ophthalmology Ophthalmoscopy - methods Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology Photography Prospective Studies Retinopathy of Prematurity - diagnosis Sensitivity and Specificity Surgery Surgical Oncology |
| title | Alternative methods for the screening of retinopathy of prematurity: binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy vs wide-field digital retinal imaging |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T13%3A05%3A34IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Alternative%20methods%20for%20the%20screening%20of%20retinopathy%20of%20prematurity:%20binocular%20indirect%20ophthalmoscopy%20vs%20wide-field%20digital%20retinal%20imaging&rft.jtitle=Eye%20(London)&rft.au=Sekeroglu,%20M%20A&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1053&rft.epage=1057&rft.pages=1053-1057&rft.issn=0950-222X&rft.eissn=1476-5454&rft_id=info:doi/10.1038/eye.2013.128&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1439221176%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1431927104&rft_id=info:pmid/23764991&rfr_iscdi=true |