ArticleBMJ paediatrics open2021
ROP screening and treatment in four district-level special newborn care units in India: a cross-sectional study of screening and treatment rates.
Article in BMJ paediatrics open, 2021. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Variations in prevalence of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and completeness of screening in five units within a South African region: a register-based study.Eye (London, England) · 2026Observational
- Building a Future without Blindness due to Retinopathy of Prematurity in India: Progress, Challenges, and the Way Forward.Indian pediatrics · 2026Review
- Incidence of Retinopathy of Prematurity Between 2021 and 2024: Results from a Single Center.Beyoglu eye journal · 2025Article
- Retinopathy of prematurity in India - what can we learn from the polio legacy?The Lancet regional health. Southeast Asia · 2023Review
- Commentary: Retinopathy of prematurity: Where do we stand?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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Blindness from retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in middle-income countries is generally due to absence of screening or inadequate screening. The objective of this study was to assess uptake of services in an ROP programme in four district-level special newborn care units in India. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: All four neonatal units of a state in India where model programme for ROP had been introduced. Patients: Infants eligible for screening and treatment of ROP between March and May 2017. Intervention: Data on sex, birth weight and gestational age of eligible infants were collected and medical records reviewed for follow-up. Main outcome measures: Proportion of eligible infants screened and for those screened, age at first screening, completion of screening, diagnosis and treatment received if indicated. The characteristics of infants screened and not screened were compared. Results: 137 (18%) of the 751 infants eligible for screening were screened at least once, with no statistically significant difference by sex. The mean birth weight and gestational age of those screened were significantly lower than those not screened. Among those screened, 43% underwent first screening later than recommended and 44% had incomplete follow-up. Fourteen infants (11% of those screened) were diagnosed with ROP. Five were advised laser treatment and all complied. Conclusion: Uptake, completion and timing of first screening was suboptimal. Some planned interventions including training of nursing staff, use of integrated data-management software and providing material for parent counselling, which have been initiated, need to be fully implemented to improve uptake of ROP screening services.
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.