Retinal hemorrhage in abusive head trauma: finding a common language.

Alex V Levin, Jose A Cordovez, Benjamin E Leiby, Edward Pequignot, Anamika Tandon
{"title":"Retinal hemorrhage in abusive head trauma: finding a common language.","authors":"Alex V Levin,&nbsp;Jose A Cordovez,&nbsp;Benjamin E Leiby,&nbsp;Edward Pequignot,&nbsp;Anamika Tandon","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the performance of a refined Web-based tool for documenting retinal hemorrhage characteristics in suspected abusive head trauma.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a comprehensive tabular secure platform, with access to digital images in color, black and white, and 4-zone system schematic overlay, four pediatric ophthalmologists performed pilot testing with 80 images for tool refinement. In a second phase, retinal hemorrhages were documented by number, zone, and type. Interobserver agreement was calculated using the Fleiss kappa coefficient. Intraobserver agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa statistic. We used surface area mapping software for further analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Interobserver agreement was good (kappa 0.4-0.6) and very good (kappa 0.6-0.8) for all questions in Zone A (peripapillary). For zones C (midperiphery) and D (peripheral retina), agreement was very good for all questions except number of hemorrhages, for which agreement was good. Zone B (macula) showed good and fair agreement except for superficial hemorrhage, for which agreement was poor. There was very good intraobserver agreement for number (kappa 0.68, 0.65, 0.67) and type of hemorrhages in zones A, B, and C. Surface area mapping results revealed no significant differences between zones A and B. Zones C and D had significantly less hemorrhage than A and B.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our tool performed with good or very good interobserver and intraobserver agreement in almost all domains. We attribute zone B underperformance to the significant increased area covered by hemorrhages compared to zones C and D and the lack of contrast with normal anatomical structures in zone A.</p>","PeriodicalId":23166,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4102172/pdf/1545-6110_v112_p001.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the American Ophthalmological Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the performance of a refined Web-based tool for documenting retinal hemorrhage characteristics in suspected abusive head trauma.

Methods: Using a comprehensive tabular secure platform, with access to digital images in color, black and white, and 4-zone system schematic overlay, four pediatric ophthalmologists performed pilot testing with 80 images for tool refinement. In a second phase, retinal hemorrhages were documented by number, zone, and type. Interobserver agreement was calculated using the Fleiss kappa coefficient. Intraobserver agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa statistic. We used surface area mapping software for further analysis.

Results: Interobserver agreement was good (kappa 0.4-0.6) and very good (kappa 0.6-0.8) for all questions in Zone A (peripapillary). For zones C (midperiphery) and D (peripheral retina), agreement was very good for all questions except number of hemorrhages, for which agreement was good. Zone B (macula) showed good and fair agreement except for superficial hemorrhage, for which agreement was poor. There was very good intraobserver agreement for number (kappa 0.68, 0.65, 0.67) and type of hemorrhages in zones A, B, and C. Surface area mapping results revealed no significant differences between zones A and B. Zones C and D had significantly less hemorrhage than A and B.

Conclusions: Our tool performed with good or very good interobserver and intraobserver agreement in almost all domains. We attribute zone B underperformance to the significant increased area covered by hemorrhages compared to zones C and D and the lack of contrast with normal anatomical structures in zone A.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
虐待性头部创伤的视网膜出血:寻找共同语言。
目的:评估一种改进的基于网络的工具的性能,用于记录疑似虐待性头部创伤的视网膜出血特征。方法:采用综合表格式安全平台,访问彩色、黑白、四区系统原理图叠加的数字图像,4名儿童眼科医生对80幅图像进行了试点测试,以改进工具。在第二阶段,根据数量、区域和类型记录视网膜出血。使用Fleiss kappa系数计算观察者间的一致性。使用Cohen's kappa统计量计算观察者内部一致性。我们使用表面积绘图软件进行进一步分析。结果:A区(乳头周围)所有问题的观察者间一致性为良好(kappa 0.4-0.6)和非常好(kappa 0.6-0.8)。对于C区(中外周)和D区(外周视网膜),除出血数量外,所有问题的一致性都很好,出血数量一致性很好。B区(黄斑)除浅表出血外表现良好,一致性较差。A区、B区和C区出血的数量(kappa 0.68、0.65、0.67)和类型在观察者内的一致性非常好。表面绘制结果显示A区和B区之间没有显著差异。C区和D区出血明显少于A区和B区。结论:我们的工具在几乎所有领域的观察者间和观察者内的一致性都很好或非常好。我们将B区表现不佳归因于与C区和D区相比出血面积明显增加,以及A区与正常解剖结构缺乏对比。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Utility of Color Duplex Ultrasonography in the Diagnosis of Giant Cell Arteritis: A Prospective, Masked Study. (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis). Autoimmune Retinopathy: Current Concepts and Practices (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis). The Relationship Between Ocular Itch, Ocular Pain, and Dry Eye Symptoms (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis). Erratum: Predictors of Intraocular Pressure After Phacoemulsification in Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Eyes with Wide Versus Narrower Angles (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis). The Effects of Phacoemulsification and Intraocular Lens Implantation on Anatomical and Functional Parameters in Patients with Primary Angle Closure: A Prospective Study. (An American Ophthalmological Society Thesis).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1