ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2024
Evaluation of the update for screening for retinopathy of prematurity in a tertiary care center in Türkiye with retrospective cohorts.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 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.
- Incidence of Retinopathy of Prematurity Between 2021 and 2024: Results from a Single Center.Beyoglu eye journal · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: In Türkiye, the recommendations for screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) were updated in 2021. We aimed to present detailed data on the infants included in the screening program according to the new criteria and evaluate whether these changes are of benefit in detecting severe ROP. Materials and methods: Our hospital's medical records of infants screened for ROP between July 2019 and July 2021 or between August 2021 and August 2023 were retrospectively examined. Gestational age (GA), birth weight, the sex of the infant, whether there was multiple pregnancy, ROP examination results, the most advanced ROP level and time, and ROP treatment needs and times were recorded. Cohort data from these two time periods before and after the update were compared. Results: Three hundred and fifty-seven infants screened before the updating of the guidelines and 336 infants screened after the update were included in the analysis. Between August 2021 and August 2023, more cases of ROP were detected (19.3% and 21.4% for the two cohorts, respectively), while a lower rate of treatment was required (3.9% and 2.1% for the cohorts, respectively). One of the infants treated after the update was included in the screening based on the new GA criterion. In both cohorts, no infant needed treatment before 32 weeks of postmenstrual age regardless of agreement with GA at birth. Conclusion: In this study, one infant in need of treatment who was not included in the screening program according to the previous criteria was identified. The data we obtained support the necessity of increasing the upper limit for GA. Additionally, the 31st week seems safe for the beginning of examinations in extremely premature infants.
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.