ArticleEye (London, England)2022
Clinical outcome following reinjection of Ranibizumab for reactivation of retinopathy of prematurity.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of regression, reactivation, retreatment and retinal detachment after injections of three different anti-VEGF drugs for retinopathy of prematurity.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Efficacy and factors associated with reactivation following intravitreal ranibizumab or conbercept for retinopathy of prematurity.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of Ranibizumab in Patients with Treatment-Naïve Retinopathy of Prematurity.Turkish journal of ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Characteristics of retinal vascularization in reactivated retinopathy of prematurity requiring treatment and clinical outcome after reinjection of ranibizumab.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Recurrence risk factors of intravitreal ranibizumab monotherapy in retinopathy of prematurity: a retrospective study at one center.International journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Comparison of bevacizumab, ranibizumab and aflibercept in retinopathy of prematurity treatment.International ophthalmology · 2022Article
- Tailoring Screening Guidelines for Retinopathy of Prematurity in Egypt: An Exploratory Multicentric Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo assess reactivation after initial intravitreal injection of ranibizumab (IVR) for type 1 retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) or worse and the outcome following reinjection of ranibizumab for this reactivation.
methodsThis retrospective study was performed on infants screened for ROP between March 2013 and February 2020 in Mansoura University Children Hospital, Mansoura, Egypt. Infants treated with ranibizumab 0.25 mg/0.025 mL were identified for review of their clinical outcomes. Data of infants with reactivation and IVR re-injection were analysed.
resultsA total of 2318 infants were screened for ROP, 115 (5%) infants (216 eyes) with a mean gestational age of 30 ± 2.5 weeks and mean birth weight of 1290 ± 355.2 g received IVR at mean postmenstrual age (PMA) of 38 ± 3.1 weeks. All treated eyes demonstrated initial regression of ROP. However, ROP reactivation occurred in 5 (2.3%) eyes of 3 patients, at an average of 9.6 ± 2.9 weeks after treatment. None of these eyes had retinal detachment. A second dose IVR was administered and all five eyes showed regression with complete retinal vascularisation, at a mean PMA of 60 ± 5.1 weeks.
conclusionsIVR is beneficial as an initial and subsequent treatment for type 1 ROP or APROP. A long-term follow-up until complete retinal vascularisation is recommended to avoid disease reactivation.
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.