Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34812847›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2021

The Use of Postnatal Weight Gain Algorithms to Predict Severe or Type 1 Retinopathy of Prematurity: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Sam Athikarisamy, Saumil Desai, Sanjay Patole, Shripada Rao, Karen Simmer, Geoffrey C Lam

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Expected and Desirable Preterm and Small Infant Growth Patterns.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Transforming neonatal care with artificial intelligence: challenges, ethical consideration, and opportunities.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2024
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Validation of the Postnatal Growth and Retinopathy of Prematurity (GROP) screening criteria.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2022
    Article
  19. Review
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

6 authors.

Sam AthikarisamyNeonatal Directorate, Perth Children's Hospital and King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Perth, Australia.
Saumil DesaiNeonatal Directorate, Perth Children's Hospital and King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Perth, Australia.
Sanjay PatoleNeonatal Directorate, Perth Children's Hospital and King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Perth, Australia.
Shripada RaoNeonatal Directorate, Perth Children's Hospital and King Edward Memorial Hospital for Women, Perth, Australia.
Karen SimmerSchool of Medicine, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia.
Geoffrey C LamDepartment of Ophthalmology, Perth Children's Hospital, Perth, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The currently recommended method for screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy, which requires frequent eye examinations entailing a heavy clinical workload. Weight gain-based algorithms have the potential to minimize the need for binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy and have been evaluated in different setups with variable results to predict type 1 or severe ROP. Objective: To synthesize evidence regarding the ability of postnatal weight gain-based algorithms to predict type 1 or severe ROP. Data Sources: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify studies published between January 2000 and August 2021. Study Selection: Prospective and retrospective studies evaluating the ability of these algorithms to predict type 1 or severe ROP were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two reviewers independently extracted data. This meta-analysis was performed according to the Cochrane guidelines and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA) guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ability of algorithms to predict type 1 or sever ROP was measured using statistical indices (pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary area under the receiver operating characteristic curves, as well as pooled negative likelihood ratios and positive likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratios). Results: A total of 61 studies (>37 000 infants) were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled estimates for sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85-0.92) and 0.57 (95% CI, 0.51-0.63) for WINROP (Weight, IGF-1 [insulinlike growth factor 1], Neonatal, ROP), 1.00 (95% CI, 0.88-1.00) and 0.60 (95% CI, 0.15-0.93) for G-ROP (Postnatal Growth and ROP), 0.95 (95% CI, 0.71-0.99) and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.36-0.68) for CHOP ROP (Children's Hospital of Philadelphia ROP), 0.99 (95% CI, 0.73-1.00) and 0.49 (95% CI, 0.03-0.74) for ROPScore, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.94-0.99) and 0.35 (95% CI, 0.22-0.51) for CO-ROP (Colorado ROP). The original PINT (Premature Infants in Need of Transfusion) ROP study reported a sensitivity of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91-0.99) and a specificity of 0.36 (95% CI, 0.30-0.42). The pooled negative likelihood ratios were 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13-0.27) for WINROP, 0.0 (95% CI, 0.00-0.32) for G-ROP, 0.10 (95% CI, 0.02-0.53) for CHOP ROP, 0.03 (95% CI, 0.00-0.77) for ROPScore, and 0.07 (95% CI, 0.03-0.16) for CO-ROP. The pooled positive likelihood ratios were 2.1 (95% CI, 1.8-2.4) for WINROP, 2.5 (95% CI, 0.7-9.1) for G-ROP, 2.0 (95% CI, 1.5-2.6) for CHOP ROP, 1.9 (95% CI, 1.1-3.3) for ROPScore, and 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.9) for CO-ROP. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that weight gain-based algorithms have adequate sensitivity and negative likelihood ratios to provide reasonable certainty in ruling out type 1 ROP or severe ROP. Given the implications of missing even a single case of severe ROP, algorithms with very high sensitivity (close to 100%) and low negative likelihood ratios (close to zero) need to be chosen to safely reduce the number of unnecessary examinations in infants at lower risk of severe ROP.

Indexed as

Birth WeightEarly DiagnosisWeight GainAlgorithmsFemaleForecastingHumansInfant, NewbornInfant, PrematureInfant, Premature, DiseasesMaleNeonatal ScreeningPhiladelphiaPrognosisProspective StudiesRetinopathy of Prematurity

Identifiers

PMID34812847
PMCPMC8611486

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.