ArticlePediatric research2025
Physiological responses to retinopathy of prematurity screening: indirect ophthalmoscopy versus ultra-widefield retinal imaging.
Article in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Risk factors and prevalence of retinopathy of prematurity in very low birth weight preterm infants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Translational pediatrics · 2026Article
- Neonatal retinal hemorrhage and retinopathy of prematurity: a critical review of current practices and future directions.Therapeutic advances in ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
aimsRetinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening is vital for early disease detection in very premature infants but can cause physiological instability. This study compares the physiological response to binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy (BIO) with indentation and non-contact ultra-widefield (UWF) retinal imaging in non-ventilated neonates. The impact of the Dandle WRAP, a specialised swaddling aid, on UWF imaging was also assessed.
methodsThis retrospective study included 86 ROP screening events in 66 non-ventilated infants aged 35.3 weeks (range 30.6-44.6). Vital signs were continuously recorded, evaluating immediate (within 15 min) and longer-term (within 12 h) physiological responses.
resultsROP screening significantly increased heart and respiratory rates and decreased oxygen saturation within 15 min of screening. No significant differences in physiological responses were found between BIO and UWF imaging, although there was a trend towards lower maximum heart rate with UWF imaging. The Dandle WRAP did not significantly alter physiological responses but improved the ease and speed of UWF imaging.
conclusionUWF imaging does not increase physiological instability compared to BIO in non-ventilated infants. Specialised swaddling aids may facilitate the imaging procedure. IMPACT: ROP screening can be distressing for premature infants and induce physiological instability during and after the examination. We deployed non-contact ultra-widefield retinal imaging as the default method of ROP screening and show that it induces comparable physiological responses as traditional indirect ophthalmoscopy in non-ventilated babies. Dandle WRAP swaddling facilitated handling and speed of retinal imaging. The study demonstrates that imaging-based ROP screening is safe and efficacious in non-ventilated neonates, and continuous multimodal physiological recordings can provide detailed assessment of the effects of procedures and medications.
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.