ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Intravitreal Ranibizumab and Laser Photocoagulation in the Treatment of Type I Retinopathy of Prematurity in Malaysia: A One-Year Follow-Up Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the treatment efficacy, anatomical outcomes, and refractive outcomes of laser photocoagulation (LPC) and intravitreal ranibizumab (IVR) in the treatment of type I retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) at one-year follow-up.
methodsThis is a retrospective study on the treatment of type I ROP and aggressive ROP (A-ROP) using LPC or IVR in three Malaysian hospitals providing pediatric ophthalmology services from January 2019 to December 2021. Information on gestational age, birth weight, ROP zone and stage, and underlying comorbidities was collected. Parameters for evaluating treatment efficacy include the time taken to achieve complete regression, the regression rate, and the reactivation rate. The anatomical and refractive outcomes were evaluated at one year of adjusted age.
resultsThis study included 92 eyes from 46 infants. Of these, 42 eyes received LPC as the initial treatment, while 50 eyes underwent IVR. A higher percentage of infants with cardiovascular disease were treated with IVR (66.7%) compared to LPC (40%) (p<0.05). However, there were no significant differences in gestational age, birth weight, respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, or intraventricular hemorrhage between the two treatment groups (p>0.05). Infants treated with LPC had a higher regression rate than those treated with IVR, but they were also significantly more myopic and had worse best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Conversely, infants treated with IVR experienced a significantly higher reactivation rate compared to those treated with LPC. Logistic regression analysis showed no significant associations between gestational age, birth weight, plus disease, zone 1 ROP, and the choice of initial treatment with the reactivation of ROP.
conclusionsBoth LPC and IVR effectively treat type I ROP in infants, with IVR yielding superior anatomical and refractive outcomes and LPC offering a lower reactivation rate. Understanding individual patient characteristics is crucial for treatment selection.
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.