Display Settings:


Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006 Mar;124(3):322-7.

Accuracy and reliability of remote retinopathy of prematurity diagnosis.

Author information

  • 1Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY, USA. chiang@dbmi.columbia.edu



To determine the accuracy and reliability of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) diagnosis using remote review of digital images by 3 masked ophthalmologist readers.


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.


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 kappa for interreader reliability was 0.743. Intrareader reliability for detection of low-risk prethreshold ROP or worse was 100% for all readers.


The accuracy, interreader reliability, and intrareader reliability of remote diagnosis of clinically relevant ROP based on digital imaging are substantial.

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk