ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2022
Evaluation of a revised care plan for babies with retinopathy of prematurity during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in India.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Commentary: Care for retinopathy of prematurity in the COVID-19 era: When the going gets tough, the tough get going.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To analyze the impact of a revised care plan for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in a tertiary eye care facility in eastern India. Methods: In a retrospective study, we analyzed the medical records of babies managed for ROP during the peak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, with particular reference to the challenges, and the revised strategies addressing travel restrictions for five months, from April to August 2020. The strategy included selective referral (babies with higher treatment probability), longer follow-up intervals (babies with non-alarming findings), use of locally available workforce, and teleconsultation whenever feasible. Results: In the given period, 222 babies were examined versus 624 in the preceding year (P = 0.001). The average gestational age, birth weight, and postmenstrual age at presentation were 30.4 weeks, 1.31 kg, and 37.7 weeks, respectively. The first examination was on time in 40.1% of babies but was delayed by a median of 23 days in the remaining babies. In the cohort, 56.7% of babies had any ROP, and 27.9% required treatment (versus 8.8% in the previous year; P < 0.001). The intravitreal anti-vascular growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection was more often used than in the previous year (n = 72 vs 36; P < 0.0001). The treatment outcome was comparable before and after the SARS-CoV-2 lockdown period. There was no report of health issues among the care providers attributable to ROP care. Conclusion: The revised strategy resulted in a smaller pool of babies screened but a larger proportion of babies treated for ROP. This strategy could be used more profitably in future ROP care.
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.