Single grading vs double grading with adjudication in the telemedicine approaches to evaluating acute-phase retinopathy of prematurity (e-ROP) study

PURPOSE To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of single, independent, nonphysician trained reader (TR) gradings in the Telemedicine Approaches to Evaluating Acute-phase Retinopathy of Prematurity (e-ROP) study. METHODS Secondary analyses of image grading results from 1,235 infants of birth weights <1251 g. Two of three TRs independently graded image sets; discrepancies were adjudicated by the reading center director (an ophthalmologist) to reach final grading. Sensitivity and specificity of each TR grading and final grading was calculated by comparing gradings to clinical examination results. RESULTS Of 7,808 double graded image sets, TR1 graded 5,165; TR2, 3,787; and TR3, 6,664. Compared to final grading for referral warranted retinopathy of prematurity (RWROP), two TRs had relatively lower sensitivity (TR1, 75% vs 79% [P = 0.03]; TR2, 73% vs 7 7 % [P = 0.02]) and specificity (TR1, 80% vs 83% [P < 0.001]; TR2, 82% vs 83% [P = 0.09]). TR3 had similar sensitivity (83% vs 83% [P = 0.78]) and specificity (83% vs 84% [P = 0.02]). Compared to final grading, TR1 had lower sensitivity for zone I ROP (47% vs 56% [P = 0.04]) and stage ROP (71% vs 77% [P = 0.002]); TR2 had lower sensitivity for stage ROP (69% vs 77% [P < 0.001]) and lower specificity for all three components (P < 0.001); TR3 had lower sensitivity for detecting plus disease (23% vs 35% [P < 0.001]) and similar sensitivity for zone I ROP and stage > 3 ROP. CONCLUSIONS There is a small but significant decrease in the sensitivity and specificity for RW-ROP when single-reader grading is compared to double adjudicated grading.