MedElevator
Войти в исследования Acta ophthalmologica · 2021
Comparison between wide-field digital imaging system and the red reflex test for universal newborn eye screening in Brazil.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
da Cunha Laura Pires, Cavalcante Costa Marcelo Alexandre Agra, de Miranda Homero Augusto, Reis Guimarães Juliana, Aihara Teruo, Ludwig Cassie A, Rosenblatt Tatiana, Callaway Natalia F, Pasricha Malini, Al-Moujahed Ahmad, Vail Daniel, Ji Marco H, Kumm Jochen, Moshfeghi Darius M
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To compare neonatal eye screening using the red reflex test (RRT) versus the wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) system.
METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Newborns (n = 380, 760 eyes) in the Maternity Ward of Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo hospital from May to July 2014 underwent RRT by a paediatrician and WFDI performed by the authors. Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) images were analysed by the authors. Validity of the paediatrician's RRT was assessed by unweighted kappa [κ] statistic, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
RESULTS: While WFDI showed abnormalities in 130 eyes (17.1%), RRT was only abnormal in 13 eyes (1.7%). Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) detected treatable retina pathology that RRT missed including hyphema, CMV retinitis, FEVR and a vitreous haemorrhage. The sensitivity of the paediatrician's RRT to detect abnormalities was poor at 0.77% (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.02%-4.21%) with a PPV of only 7.69% (95% CI, 1.08%-38.85%). Overall, there was no agreement between screening modalities (κ = -0.02, 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.01). The number needed to screen to detect ocular abnormalities using WFDI was 5.9 newborns and to detect treatable abnormalities was 76 newborns.
CONCLUSION: While RRT detects gross abnormalities that preclude visualization of the retina (i.e. media opacities and very large tumours), only WFDI consistently detects subtle treatable retina and optic nerve pathology. With a higher sensitivity than the current gold standard, universal WFDI allows for early detection and management of potentially blinding ophthalmic disease missed by RRT.
METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Newborns (n = 380, 760 eyes) in the Maternity Ward of Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericórdia de São Paulo hospital from May to July 2014 underwent RRT by a paediatrician and WFDI performed by the authors. Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) images were analysed by the authors. Validity of the paediatrician's RRT was assessed by unweighted kappa [κ] statistic, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).
RESULTS: While WFDI showed abnormalities in 130 eyes (17.1%), RRT was only abnormal in 13 eyes (1.7%). Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) detected treatable retina pathology that RRT missed including hyphema, CMV retinitis, FEVR and a vitreous haemorrhage. The sensitivity of the paediatrician's RRT to detect abnormalities was poor at 0.77% (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.02%-4.21%) with a PPV of only 7.69% (95% CI, 1.08%-38.85%). Overall, there was no agreement between screening modalities (κ = -0.02, 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.01). The number needed to screen to detect ocular abnormalities using WFDI was 5.9 newborns and to detect treatable abnormalities was 76 newborns.
CONCLUSION: While RRT detects gross abnormalities that preclude visualization of the retina (i.e. media opacities and very large tumours), only WFDI consistently detects subtle treatable retina and optic nerve pathology. With a higher sensitivity than the current gold standard, universal WFDI allows for early detection and management of potentially blinding ophthalmic disease missed by RRT.