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
Wide-field digital retinal imaging versus binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: a two-observer prospective, randomised comparison
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
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.
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
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Title added to your shelf!
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to 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
Wide-field digital retinal imaging versus binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: a two-observer prospective, randomised comparison

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
How would you like to get it?
We have requested the book for you! Sorry the robot delivery is not available at the moment
We have requested the book for you!
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.
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
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.