Eye (London, England) · 2013
Alternative methods for the screening of retinopathy of prematurity: binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy vs wide-field digital retinal imaging.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Sekeroglu M A, Hekimoglu E, Sekeroglu H T, Arslan U
Аннотация
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.
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.