ArticleBMC ophthalmology2022
Retrospective validation of the postnatal Growth and Retinopathy of Prematurity (G-ROP) criteria in a Swiss cohort.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Retrospective validation of the postnatal growth and retinopathy of prematurity criteria in a Chinese cohort.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2025Article
- Article
- Validation of the postnatal growth and retinopathy of prematurity (G-ROP) screening criteria in a Thai cohort.Japanese journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Modifiable Risk Factors and Preventative Strategies for Severe Retinopathy of Prematurity.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparison of Weight-Gain-Based Prediction Models for Retinopathy of Prematurity in an Australian Population.Journal of ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Validation of the Postnatal Growth and Retinopathy of Prematurity (GROP) screening criteria.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrently used screening criteria for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) show high sensitivity for predicting treatment-requiring ROP but low specificity; over 90% of examined infants do not develop ROP that requires treatment (type 1 ROP). A novel weight gain-based prediction model was developed by the G-ROP study group to increase the specificity of the screening criteria and keep the number of ophthalmic examinations as low as possible. This retrospective cohort study aimed to externally validate the G-ROP screening criteria in a Swiss cohort.
methodsData from 645 preterm infants in ROP screening at Inselspital Bern between January 2015 and December 2019 were retrospectively retrieved from the screening log and analysed. The G-ROP screening criteria, consisting of 6 trigger parameters, were applied in infants with complete data. To determine the performance of the G-ROP prediction model for treatment-requiring ROP, sensitivity and specificity were calculated.
resultsComplete data were available for 322 infants who were included in the analysis. None of the excluded infants had developed type 1 ROP. By applying the 6 criteria in the G-ROP model, 214 infants were flagged to undergo screening: among these, 14 developed type 1 ROP, 9 developed type 2 ROP, and 43 developed milder stages of ROP. The sensitivity for predicting treatment-requiring ROP was 100% (CI, 0.79-1.00), and the specificity was 41% (CI, 0.35 -0.47). Implementing the novel G-ROP screening criteria would reduce the number of infants entering ROP screening by approximately one third.
conclusionsThe overall prevalence of treatment-requiring ROP was low (2.15%). Previously published performance parameters for the G-ROP algorithm were reproducible in this Swiss cohort. Importantly, all treatment-requiring infants were correctly identified. By using these novel criteria, the burden of screening examinations could be significantly reduced.
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.