ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2019
Analysis of the clinical characteristics and refraction state in premature infants: a 10-year retrospective analysis.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mendelian randomization analysis reveals a causal relationship between preterm birth and myopia risk.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Follow-up of Kangaroo Mother Care programmes in the last 28 years: results from a cohort of 57 154 low-birth-weight infants in Colombia.BMJ global health · 2023Article
- Refractive status and optical components in premature infants with and without retinopathy of prematurity: A 4- to 5-year cohort study.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2022Article
- Evaluation of the Effect of Different Treatment Management on Refractive Outcomes in Severe Retinopathy of Prematurity.Sisli Etfal Hastanesi tip bulteni · 2021Article
- Swept-source optical coherence tomography findings in premature children with a history of retinopathy of prematurity at 5 years of age.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologiaArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo report the visual outcomes and refractive status in premature infants with and without retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) who were or not treated.
methodsThe clinical records of all premature infants with or without ROP and with or without treatment between 2007 and 2017 were retrospectively reviewed. Basic demographic data, serial changes in ROP incidence, treatment and outcomes, and the refractive states were analyzed. Correlations among myopia and astigmatism progression, birth weight, gestational age, and treatment methods were also analyzed.
resultsA total of 562 screened premature infants (all Chinese, 1124 eyes), were recruited with a 378:184 male-to-female ratio. Birth weight did not directly influence ROP incidence. The overall ROP incidence was 16.55% (93/562 cases). The incidences in boys and girls were 16.14% (33/378 cases) and 17.39% (32/184 cases), respectively, and this difference was not significant. However, all infants with serious ROP (stage IV and V) were male. Myopia combined with astigmatism was common in premature infants with and without ROP (30.99%, 172/555 cases), and myopic refraction (including myopia and myopia combined with astigmatism) was more common in premature infants with ROP (48.84%, 42/86 cases). In the >8.00 diopter group, there were significantly more ROP infants than without ROP. Myopic refraction (including myopia and myopia combined with astigmatism) was most common in infants with ROP after treatment (63.63%, 7/11 cases).
conclusionThe refractive state is different between premature infants and mature infants. Those treated for ROP had a higher chance of developing myopia, astigmatism, and higher diopter.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.