The RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF EPICAM M AND RETCAM SHUTTLE COMPARED TO INDIRECT OPHTHALMOSCOPE IN DETECTION OF RETINOPATHY OF PREMATURITY

Article Sidebar

IJRETINA Vol 6 No 2
  PDF
Published Sep 27, 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.35479/ijretina.2023.vol006.iss002.233

Main Article Content

Meiliaty Ariesta Angky
Bosowa University
Marliyanti N Akib
Hasanuddin University
Noor Syamsu
Hasanuddin University
Andi Muhammad Ichsan
Hasanuddin University
Habibah S Muhiddin
Hasanuddin University
Ema Alasiry
Hasanuddin University

Abstract

Introduction: In this study, we reported the performance of 2 retinal camera types on premature infants in Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) screening.


Methods: Premature infants went through : (1) examination by a pediatric ophthalmologist using indirect ophthalmoscopy as a standard of reference; (2) digital imaging by a photographer using EpiCam M and RetCam shuttle. After a month, images were interpreted randomly and single-blinded by the same pediatric ophthalmologist (grader).


Result: A total of 44 eyes from  22 premature infants were included in this study (ROP 11 subjects and non-ROP 11 subjects). Detection of ROP with EpiCam M had a moderate agreement (Kappa 0.502, p 0.009) and very good agreement with RetCam shuttle (Kappa 0.862, p <0.0001). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EpiCam M in detection of ROP were 80.95%, 69.56%, and 75%; RetCam shuttle 85.71%, 100%, and 93.18% respectively.


Conclusion: Both EpiCam M and RetCam shuttle displayed significant agreement with indirect ophthalmoscope in detecting ROP. EpiCam M can potentially be allowed to be a viable low-cost alternative device for ROP screening in low resource environments but should be noted that EpiCam M has a high false positive rate which affects its specificity and accuracy rate. Some issues also need to be considered if using epiCam M in telemedicine includes frequent glare and longer duration of documentation

Keywords

Retinopathy of prematurity, screening, Sensitivity and Specificity, telemedicine

Article Details

How to Cite
ANGKY, Meiliaty Ariesta et al. The RELIABILITY AND ACCURACY OF EPICAM M AND RETCAM SHUTTLE COMPARED TO INDIRECT OPHTHALMOSCOPE IN DETECTION OF RETINOPATHY OF PREMATURITY. International Journal of Retina, [S.l.], v. 6, n. 2, p. 98, sep. 2023. ISSN 2614-8536. Available at: <https://ijretina.com/index.php/ijretina/article/view/233>. Date accessed: 17 sep. 2024. doi: https://doi.org/10.35479/ijretina.2023.vol006.iss002.233.
ABNT APA BibTeX CBE EndNote - EndNote format (Macintosh & Windows) MLA ProCite - RIS format (Macintosh & Windows) RefWorks Reference Manager - RIS format (Windows only) Turabian
Issue
Vol 6 No 2 (2023): International Journal of Retina (IJRetina) - INAVRS
Section
Research Articles
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

1. Terry TL. Extreme prematurity and fibroblastic overgrowth of persistent vascular sheath behind each crystalline lens. I. Preliminary report. Am J Ophthalmol. 1942;25:203–204.
2. Gilbert C, Foster A. Childhood blindness in the context of VISION 2020—the right to sight. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:227–232
3. 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
4. Painter SL, Wilkinson AR, Desai P, Goldacre MJ, Patel CK. Incidence and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity in England between 1990 and 2011: Database study. Br J Ophthalmol 2015;99:807-11
5. Sanghi G, Dogra MR, Katoch D, Gupta A. Demographic profile of infants with stage 5 retinopathy of prematurity in North India: Implications for screening. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 2011;18:72–4.
6. Wu C, Petersen RA, VanderVeen DK. RetCam Imaging for Retinopathy of Prematurity Screening. Journal of American Association for Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus, 2006;10-(2), 107–11.
7. Tejada-Palacios P, Zarratea L, Moral M, de la Cruz-Bértolo J. Comparative study of RetCam II vs. binocular ophthalmoscopy in a screening program for retinopathy of prematurity. Archivos de La Sociedad Española de Oftalmología, 2015; 90(8), 373–8.
8. Chiang MF, Starren J, Du YE, et al. Remote image based retinopathy of prematurity diagnosis: a receiver operating characteristic analysis of accuracy. Br J Ophthalmol. 2006;90(10):1292-1296. doi:10.1136/bjo.2006.091900
9. Dhaliwal C, Wright E, Graham C, McIntosh N, Fleck BW. Wide-field digital retinal imaging versus binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy for retinopathy of prematurity screening: a two-observer prospective, randomised comparison. Br J Ophthalmol. 2009 Mar;93(3):355-9. doi: 10.1136/bjo.2008.148908. Epub 2008 Nov 21. PMID: 19028742.
10. Schwartz SD, Harrison SA, Ferrone PJ, Trese MT. Telemedical evaluation and management of retinopathy of prematurity using a fiberoptic digital fundus camera. Ophthalmology. 2000 Jan;107(1):25-8. doi: 10.1016/s0161-6420(99)00003-2. PMID: 10647714.
11. Photographic Screening for Retinopathy of Prematurity (Photo-ROP) Cooperative Group. The photographic screening for retinopathy of prematurity study (photo-ROP). Primary outcomes. Retina. 2008 Mar;28(3 Suppl):S47-54. doi: 10.1097/IAE.0b013e31815e987f. Erratum in: Retina. 2009 Jan;29(1):127. PMID: 18317345.
12. Roth DB, Morales D, Feuer WJ, Hess D, Johnson RA, Flynn JT. Screening for retinopathy of prematurity employing the retcam 120: sensitivity and specificity. Arch Ophthalmol. 2001 Feb;119(2):268-72. PMID: 11176990.