Asset Details
MbrlCatalogueTitleDetail
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Wide-field digital retinal imaging versus binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: a two-observer prospective, randomised comparison
by
McIntosh, N
, Fleck, B W
, Wright, E
, Dhaliwal, C
, Graham, C
in
Agreements
/ Babies
/ Biological and medical sciences
/ Decision making
/ Humans
/ Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods
/ Infant, Newborn
/ Infant, Premature
/ Management decisions
/ Medical personnel
/ Medical sciences
/ Methods
/ Miscellaneous
/ Neonatal Screening - methods
/ Observer Variation
/ Ophthalmology
/ Ophthalmoscopy - methods
/ Photography
/ Prospective Studies
/ Retina - pathology
/ Retinopathies
/ Retinopathy of Prematurity - diagnosis
/ Sensitivity and Specificity
/ Studies
2009
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
You are currently in the queue to collect this book. You will be notified once it is your turn to collect the book.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Wide-field digital retinal imaging versus binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: a two-observer prospective, randomised comparison
by
McIntosh, N
, Fleck, B W
, Wright, E
, Dhaliwal, C
, Graham, C
in
Agreements
/ Babies
/ Biological and medical sciences
/ Decision making
/ Humans
/ Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods
/ Infant, Newborn
/ Infant, Premature
/ Management decisions
/ Medical personnel
/ Medical sciences
/ Methods
/ Miscellaneous
/ Neonatal Screening - methods
/ Observer Variation
/ Ophthalmology
/ Ophthalmoscopy - methods
/ Photography
/ Prospective Studies
/ Retina - pathology
/ Retinopathies
/ Retinopathy of Prematurity - diagnosis
/ Sensitivity and Specificity
/ Studies
2009
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Do you wish to request the book?
Wide-field digital retinal imaging versus binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: a two-observer prospective, randomised comparison
by
McIntosh, N
, Fleck, B W
, Wright, E
, Dhaliwal, C
, Graham, C
in
Agreements
/ Babies
/ Biological and medical sciences
/ Decision making
/ Humans
/ Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods
/ Infant, Newborn
/ Infant, Premature
/ Management decisions
/ Medical personnel
/ Medical sciences
/ Methods
/ Miscellaneous
/ Neonatal Screening - methods
/ Observer Variation
/ Ophthalmology
/ Ophthalmoscopy - methods
/ Photography
/ Prospective Studies
/ Retina - pathology
/ Retinopathies
/ Retinopathy of Prematurity - diagnosis
/ Sensitivity and Specificity
/ Studies
2009
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Wide-field digital retinal imaging versus binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: a two-observer prospective, randomised comparison
Journal Article
Wide-field digital retinal imaging versus binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: a two-observer prospective, randomised comparison
2009
Request Book From Autostore
and Choose the Collection Method
Overview
Aim:To compare the diagnostic accuracy of wide-field digital retinal imaging (WFDRI) with 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) 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 with 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% and 80%, respectively, and specificity 91%, 98% and 98%, respectively. The proportional agreement between WFDRI and BIO was 0.96 for detecting stage 3 disease and 0.97 for detecting “plus” disease. There was very good agreement on management decisions (kappa 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 programme. 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.
Publisher
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd,BMJ Publishing Group,BMJ Publishing Group LTD
This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website.