↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy and Reliability of Eye-Based vs Quadrant-Based Diagnosis of Plus Disease in Retinopathy of Prematurity

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Ophthalmology, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Accuracy and Reliability of Eye-Based vs Quadrant-Based Diagnosis of Plus Disease in Retinopathy of Prematurity
Published in
JAMA Ophthalmology, June 2018
DOI 10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2018.1195
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Presence of plus disease in retinopathy of prematurity is the most critical element in identifying treatment-requiring disease. However, there is significant variability in plus disease diagnosis. In particular, plus disease has been defined as 2 or more quadrants of vascular abnormality, and it is not clear whether it is more reliably and accurately diagnosed by eye-based assessment of overall retinal appearance or by quadrant-based assessment combining grades of 4 individual quadrants. To compare eye-based vs quadrant-based diagnosis of plus disease and to provide insight for ophthalmologists about the diagnostic process. In this multicenter cohort study, we developed a database of 197 wide-angle retinal images from 141 preterm infants from neonatal intensive care units at 9 academic institutions (enrolled from July 2011 to December 2016). Each image was assigned a reference standard diagnosis based on consensus image-based and clinical diagnosis. Data analysis was performed from February 2017 to September 2017. Six graders independently diagnosed each of the 4 quadrants (cropped images) of the 197 eyes (quadrant-based diagnosis) as well as the entire image (eye-based diagnosis). Images were displayed individually, in random order. Quadrant-based diagnosis of plus disease was made when 2 or more quadrants were diagnosed as indicating plus disease by combining grades of individual quadrants post hoc. Intragrader and intergrader reliability (absolute agreement and κ statistic) and accuracy compared with the reference standard diagnosis. Of the 141 included preterm infants, 65 (46.1%) were female and 116 (82.3%) white, and the mean (SD) gestational age was 27.0 (2.6) weeks. There was variable agreement between eye-based and quadrant-based diagnosis among the 6 graders (Cohen κ range, 0.32-0.75). Four graders showed underdiagnosis of plus disease with quadrant-based diagnosis compared with eye-based diagnosis (by McNemar test). Intergrader agreement of quadrant-based diagnosis was lower than that of eye-based diagnosis (Fleiss κ, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.71-0.78] vs 0.55 [95% CI, 0.51-0.59]). The accuracy of eye-based diagnosis compared with the reference standard diagnosis was substantial to near-perfect, whereas that of quadrant-based plus disease diagnosis was only moderate to substantial for each grader. Graders had lower reliability and accuracy using quadrant-based diagnosis combining grades of individual quadrants than with eye-based diagnosis, suggesting that eye-based diagnosis has advantages over quadrant-based diagnosis. This has implications for more precise definitions of plus disease regarding the criterion of 2 or more quadrants, clinical care, computer-based image analysis, and education for all ophthalmologists who manage retinopathy of prematurity.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 4 13%
Other 3 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 14 44%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 16 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 123. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2021.
All research outputs
#387,679
of 28,738,224 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Ophthalmology
#218
of 4,208 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,544
of 348,599 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Ophthalmology
#4
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 28,738,224 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,208 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 32.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 348,599 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.