ArticleScientific reports2024
The effect of early-onset sepsis on retinopathy of prematurity in extremely premature infants based on propensity score matching.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Prognostic nutritional index in retinopathy of prematurity: a potential indicator of disease severity?International ophthalmology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
To investigate the effects of early-onset sepsis (EOS) on retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in extremely premature infants (EPIs) by using propensity score matching (PSM). Clinical data of 591 EPIs admitted to NICU, Senior Department of Pediatric, PLA General Hospital from May 1, 2015 to May 1, 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. They were divided into an EOS group and a non-EOS group according to whether they had confirmed EOS or not. The incidence of ROP and severe ROP was compared between the two groups using the 1:1 PSM method. Of the 591 EPIs, 57 (9.6%) fell in the EOS group and the remaining 534 in the non-EOS group. There were statistical differences in artificial conception, cesarean section, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, days of oxygen use, amniotic fluid contamination, and premature rupture of membranes between the two groups (all P < 0.05), and then match these variables as covariates. Before matching, the incidence of ROP and severe ROP in the EOS group was higher than that in the non-EOS group [ROP: (35/57)61.4% vs. (224/534)41.9%, OR 2.202, 95% CI 1.257 to 3.856, P = 0.005; severe ROP: (25/57)43.9% vs. (149/534)27.9%, OR 2.019, 95% CI 1.157 to 3.521, P = 0.012], and after matching all covariables were well matched (all P > 0.05). Of the 57 cases in the EOS group, 51 were successfully matched, in which the incidence of severe ROP was higher than that in the non-EOS group [47.1% (24/51) vs. 27.5% (14/51), OR 2.349,95% CI 1.030 to 5.360, P < 0.05]. There was no significant difference in the incidence of ROP between the two groups [62.7% (32/51) vs. 49.0% (25/51), OR 1.752,95% CI 0.795 to 3.858, P > 0.05]. EOS didn't seem to increase the incidence of ROP in EPIs, but was associated with an increase in the degree of ROP lesions. The progression of fundus lesions in EPIs with EOS during hospitalization should be closely monitored.
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.