Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32367329›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2020

Retinopathy of prematurity treatment in the UK: trends in neonatal anaesthetic support and location of treatment from a national surveillance study.

Elena S Novitskaya, Annegret H Dahlmann-Noor, Gillian G W Adams, Louise E Allen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Comparison of 5-year safety and efficacy of laser photocoagulation and intravitreal bevacizumab injection in retinopathy of prematurity.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2021
    Article
  3. Anesthesia in retinopathy of prematurity.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Elena S NovitskayaOphthalmology Department, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK. elena.novitskaya@gmail.com.
Annegret H Dahlmann-NoorPaediatric and Strabismus Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Gillian G W AdamsPaediatric and Strabismus Service, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Louise E AllenOphthalmology Department, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge, UK.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study is to evaluate current anaesthetic practice for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) interventions in the UK. We collected the data from the 12-month prospective British Ophthalmic Surveillance Unit study carried out in 2013/2014 that were analysed with regard to type of anaesthesia used for primary ROP procedures and the hospital department in which treatment took place. A total of 327 cases of treated ROP from 55 different UK units were reported in the study. Type of anaesthesia used during treatment was available for 324 (99.1%) cases and the treatment location in 316 (96.6%). Overall, 266 (89.3%) laser treatments and 13 (50.0%) of primary intravitreal injections were performed with the neonate intubated, using intravenous sedation (IVS) in 158 (59.4%) and the remainder, under general anaesthesia (GA). Two hundred thirteen (67.4%) of all ROP procedures took place in the neonatal unit. GA was used in 98 (95.1%) of theatre cases compared with 19 (8.9%) of cases treated in the neonatal unit. Three (0.9%) neonates suffered significant respiratory distress during or immediately after laser treatment.Conclusion: This survey suggests that the preference in UK units is to undertake ROP laser treatment in the neonatal unit with the neonate intubated and sedated intravenously. Those babies treated in the operating theatre are more likely to receive GA. In the surveyed year, half of the neonates receiving intravitreal injections as sole primary therapy was intubated; the reason for this could not be elucidated from the responses. Adverse respiratory reactions during or after laser treatment affected fewer than 1% of the neonates in this study. What is Known: • Prior to the introduction of intravitreal anti-VEGF, almost all ROP treatments in the UK were performed under general anaesthetic (GA). • The technique of intravitreal injection is described using topical anaesthesia and was thought to be changing anaesthesia preferences for ROP treatment. What is New: • Half of the neonates receiving primary anti-VEGF injection in the UK were treated under intravenous sedation or GA. • The increasing use of primary anti-VEGF treatment has not influenced trends in anaesthetic practice in the UK since the last review 10 years ago.

Indexed as

AnestheticsRetinopathy of PrematurityAnesthesia, LocalGestational AgeHumansInfantInfant, NewbornProspective StudiesUnited KingdomAnestheticsGeneral anaesthesiaNeonatal anaesthesiaPrematurityRespiratory distressRetinopathy of prematuritySedation

Identifiers

PMID32367329
OpenAlexW3021262970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.