Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare neonatal eye screening using the red reflex test (RRT) versus the wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) system.METHODS: Prospective cohort study. Newborns (n=380, 760 eyes) in the Maternity Ward of Irmandade Santa Casa de Misericordia de Sao Paulo hospital from May to July 2014 underwent RRT by a paediatrician and WFDI performed by the authors. Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) images were analysed by the authors. Validity of the paediatrician's RRT was assessed by unweighted kappa [kappa] statistic, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV).RESULTS: While WFDI showed abnormalities in 130 eyes (17.1%), RRT was only abnormal in 13 eyes (1.7%). Wide-field digital imaging (WFDI) detected treatable retina pathology that RRT missed including hyphema, CMV retinitis, FEVR and a vitreous haemorrhage. The sensitivity of the paediatrician's RRT to detect abnormalities was poor at 0.77% (95% confidence interval, CI, 0.02%-4.21%) with a PPV of only 7.69% (95% CI, 1.08%-38.85%). Overall, there was no agreement between screening modalities (kappa=-0.02, 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.01). The number needed to screen to detect ocular abnormalities using WFDI was 5.9 newborns and to detect treatable abnormalities was 76 newborns.CONCLUSION: While RRT detects gross abnormalities that preclude visualization of the retina (i.e. media opacities and very large tumours), only WFDI consistently detects subtle treatable retina and optic nerve pathology. With a higher sensitivity than the current gold standard, universal WFDI allows for early detection and management of potentially blinding ophthalmic disease missed by RRT.

View details for DOI 10.1111/aos.14759

View details for PubMedID 34032022