Real-World Simulation of an Alternative Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening System in Thailand: A Pilot Study
To evaluate an alternative retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening system that identifies infants meriting examination by an ophthalmologist in a middle-income country.
The authors hypothesized that grading posterior pole images for the presence of pre-plus or plus disease has high sensitivity to identify infants with type 1 ROP that requires treatment. Part 1 of the study evaluated the feasibility of having a non-ophthalmologist health care worker obtain retinal images of prematurely born infants using a non-contact retinal camera (Pictor; Volk Optical, Inc., Mentor, OH) that were of sufficient quality to grade for pre-plus or plus disease. Part 2 investigated the accuracy of grading these images to identify infants with type 1 ROP. The authors prospectively recruited infants at Chulalongkorn University Hospital (Bangkok, Thailand). On days infants underwent routine ROP screening, a trained health care worker imaged their retinas with Pictor. Two ROP experts graded these serial images from a remote location for image gradability and posterior pole disease.
Fifty-six infants were included. Overall, 69.4% of infant imaging sessions were gradable. Among gradable images, the sensitivity of both graders for identifying an infant with type 1 ROP by grading for the presence of pre-plus or plus disease was 1.0 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31 to 1.0) for grader 1 and 1.0 (95% CI: 0.40 to 1.0) for grader 2. The specificity was 0.93 (95% CI: 0.76 to 0.99) for grader 1 and 0.74 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.88) for grader 2.
It was feasible for a trained non-ophthalmologist health care worker to obtain retinal images of infants using the Pictor that were of sufficient quality to identify infants with type 1 ROP.
[J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus. 2018;55(4):245–253.]
- 1.Gilbert C, Rahi J, Eckstein M, O'Sullivan J, Foster A. Retinopathy of prematurity in middle-income countries. Lancet. 1997; 350:12–14.
10.1016/S0140-6736(97)01107-0Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 2.Gilbert C. Retinopathy of prematurity: a global perspective of the epidemics, population of babies at risk and implications for control. Early Hum Dev. 2008; 84:77–82.
10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2007.11.009Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 3.Kemper AR, Wallace DK. Neonatologists' practices and experiences in arranging retinopathy of prematurity screening services. Pediatrics. 2007; 120:527–531.
10.1542/peds.2007-0378Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 4.Roach L, Francis B. ROP crisis near, survey says. EyeNet. 2006. Google Scholar
- 5.Quinn GE, Ying GS, Daniel E, Validity of a telemedicine system for the evaluation of acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity. JAMA Ophthalmol. 2014; 132:1178–1184.
10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2014.1604Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 6.Fijalkowski N, Zheng LL, Henderson MT, Wallenstein MB, Leng T, Moshfeghi DM. Stanford University Network for Diagnosis of Retinopathy of Prematurity (SUNDROP): four-years of screening with telemedicine. Curr Eye Res. 2013; 38:283–291.
10.3109/02713683.2012.754902Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 7.Vinekar A, Jayadev C, Mangalesh S, Shetty B, Vidyasagar D. Role of tele-medicine in retinopathy of prematurity screening in rural outreach centers in India: a report of 20,214 imaging sessions in the KIDROP program. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2015; 20:335–345.
10.1016/j.siny.2015.05.002Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 8.Prakalapakorn SG, Wallace DK, Freedman SF. Retinal imaging in premature infants using the Pictor noncontact digital camera. J AAPOS. 2014; 18:321–326.
10.1016/j.jaapos.2014.02.013Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 9.Early Treatment for Retinopathy Of Prematurity Cooperative Group. Revised indications for the treatment of retinopathy of prematurity: results of the early treatment for retinopathy of prematurity randomized trial. Arch Ophthalmol. 2003; 121:1684–1694.
10.1001/archopht.121.12.1684Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 10.International Committee for the Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity. The international classification of retinopathy of prematurity revisited. Arch Ophthalmol. 2005; 123:991–999.
10.1001/archopht.123.7.991Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 11.Cryotherapy for retinopathy of prematurity cooperative group. Multicenter trial of cryotherapy for retinopathy of prematurity: preliminary results. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988; 106:471–479.
10.1001/archopht.1988.01060130517027Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 12.Newcombe RG. Two-sided confidence intervals for the single proportion: comparison of seven methods. Stat Med. 1998; 17:857–872.
10.1002/(SICI)1097-0258(19980430)17:8<857::AID-SIM777>3.0.CO;2-ECrossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 13.Blyth CR, Still HA. Binomial confidence intervals. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1983; 78:108–116.
- 14.Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions, 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons; 2013. Google Scholar
- 15.Trinavarat A, Atchaneeyasakul LO, Udompunturak S. Applicability of American and British criteria for screening of the retinopathy of prematurity in Thailand. Jpn J Ophthalmol. 2004; 48:50–53.
10.1007/s10384-003-0014-2Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 16.Vinekar A, Gilbert C, Dogra M, The KIDROP model of combining strategies for providing retinopathy of prematurity screening in underserved areas in India using wide-field imaging, tele-medicine, non-physician graders and smart phone reporting. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2014; 62:41–49.
10.4103/0301-4738.126178Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar
- 17.Mehta M, Adams GG, Bunce C, Xing W, Hill M. Pilot study of the systemic effects of three different screening methods used for retinopathy of prematurity. Early Hum Dev. 2005; 81:355–360.
10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2004.09.005Crossref MedlineGoogle Scholar