Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J AAPOS. 2017 Dec 20;22(1):32–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.09.005

Table 1.

Comparison of single grading to final adjudicated grading for referral warranted–retinopathy of prematurity (RW-ROP)

Images gradinga Clinical exam positive for RW-ROP Clinical exam negative for RW-ROP
No. image sets Grading positive Sensitivity (95% CI) No. image sets Grading positive Sensitivity (95% CI)
All images graded by reader 1
 Reader 1 grading 582 438 0.75 (0.70–0.80) 4583 3670 0.80 (0.78–0.82)
 Final grading 582 457 0.79 (0.73–0.83) 4583 3781 0.83 (0.80–0.84)
 P value 0.03 <0.001
All images graded by reader 2
 Reader 2 grading 434 316 0.73 (0.6–0.78) 3353 2755 0.82 (0.80, 0.84)
 Final grading 434 336 0.77 (0.72–0.82) 3353 2792 0.83 (0.81–0.85)
 P value 0.02 0.09
All images graded by reader 3
 Reader 3 grading 612 511 0.83 (0.79–0.87) 6052 5005 0.83 (0.81–0.84)
 Final grading 612 509 0.83 (0.79–0.87) 6052 5059 0.84 (0.82–0.85)
 P value 0.78 0.02

CI, confidence interval.

a

Final grading = Trained reader agreed gradings that required no adjudication plus discrepant gradings between readers that required adjudication.