ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Efficacy comparison of 21 interventions to prevent retinopathy of prematurity: a Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to evaluate the comparative efficacy of current interventions for the prevention of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in premature infants.
methodsA network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for relevant studies from their inception to May 5, 2022. Publications were eligible for our study if they were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving preterm infants at <37 weeks of gestational age and reported the incidence of any-stage ROP treated with the interventions of interest. The overall effect was pooled using the random effects model.
resultsWe identified 106 RCTs (involving 23894 participants). This NMA showed that vitamin A supplementation markedly reduced the incidence of ROP, in comparison with placebo (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59, 95% credible interval [95% CrI] 0.33, 0.85), fish oil-based lipid emulsion (OR = 0.57, 95% CrI 0.24, 0.90), early erythropoietin (OR = 0.51, 95% CrI 0.34, 0.98), probiotics (OR = 0.48, 95% CrI 0.32, 0.97), and human milk (OR = 0.50, 95% CrI 0.21, 0.78). Vitamin A supplementation has the highest probability of being the best option for reducing the ROP risk compared with the other 20 interventions based on its surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value (SUCRA = 92.50%, 95% CrI 0.71, 1.00).
conclusionsOur findings suggest that among 21 interventions, vitamin A supplementation might be the best method of preventing ROP. This NMA offers an important resource for further efforts to develop preventive strategies for ROP.
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.