ArticleBMC ophthalmology2021
Neonatal eye screening for 203 healthy term new-borns using a wide-field digital retinal imaging system.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prevalence of sight-threatening ocular abnormalities identified by retinal examination in neonates: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2026Pooled it
- A critical review of the American Academy of Pediatrics technical report on abusive head trauma.Forensic science international. Synergy · 2025Review
- Analysis of full-term neonatal eye disease screening results and trends from 2016 to 2023.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Universal eye screening: perinatal risk factors and ocular abnormalities in 1795 newborns not meeting retinopathy of prematurity criteria.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Pediatric retina: Lessons from the past and goals for the future.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe current practice for new-born eye examination by an Ophthalmologist in Malaysian hospitals is limited to only preterm new-borns, syndromic or ill infants. Healthy term new-borns are usually discharged without a thorough eye examination. This study is aimed at determining the proportion and types of ocular abnormalities detected in purportedly healthy term new-borns.
methodThis cross-sectional study is comprised of 203 participants, all purportedly healthy term new-born infants from the Obstetrics and Gynaecology ward at Hospital Kuala Lumpur over a 6 months period. The examination list includes external eye examination, red reflex test, and fundus imaging using a wide-field digital retinal imaging system (Phoenix Clinical ICON Paediatric Retinal Camera) by a trained Investigator. The pathologies detected were documented. The results were compared and correlated with similar studies published in the literature previously.
resultsTotal ocular abnormalities were detected in 34% of the infants. The most common finding was retinal haemorrhage in 29.6% of the infants, of which 53.3% occurred bilaterally. Spontaneous vaginal delivery (SVD) remained the greatest risk factor which has nearly 3.5 times higher risk of new-borns developing retinal haemorrhage compared to Lower Segment Caesarean Section (LSCS). There was a 6% increased likelihood of developing retinal haemorrhage for every 1-min increment in the duration of 2nd stage of labour.
conclusionUniversal eye screening for all new-borns using a wide-field digital imaging system is realistically possible, safe, and useful in detecting posterior segment disorders. The most common abnormality detected is retinal haemorrhage.
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.