ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2025
Retrospective validation of the postnatal growth and retinopathy of prematurity criteria in a Chinese cohort.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2025. 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.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of the postnatal growth and retinopathy of prematurity (G-ROP) screening criteria in a Chinese neonatal cohort. Methods: Data pertaining to the retinal screening of premature infants admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit from January 2021 through December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The severity of ROP was graded on the basis of the International Classification of Retinopathy of Prematurity criteria established in 2005. Treatment decisions for ROP were guided by the recommendations of the Early Treatment for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group. The presence of six key variables that comprise the G-ROP screening criteria were carefully documented. The sensitivity and specificity of the G-ROP predictive algorithm in identifying infants with ROP requiring treatment were calculated. Results: A total of 352 infants with complete records were included in this study, among whom 120 infants (34.1%) were diagnosed with ROP. Of those, 21 infants (6.0%) received treatment. By applying the 6 criteria of the G-ROP model, all infants with severe ROP were successfully identified. The sensitivity of the G-ROP model in predicting treatment-requiring ROP was 100% (CI, 0.808-1.00), and the specificity was 47.8% (CI, 0.413-0.545). By applying the G-ROP criteria, the number of infants who required ROP screening would have been reduced by 122 (34.7%), while the number of screenings (1967) would have been reduced by 537 (27.3%). Conclusion: The prevalence of ROP (34.1%) and treatment-requiring ROP (6.0%) were relatively high in our cohort. Application of the G-ROP prediction model can improve the sensitivity and specificity of ROP screening. All infants with treatment-requiring ROP were correctly identified. The G-ROP screening criteria seemed to be effective and appropriate for predicting ROP in infants living in Tianjin, China.
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.