ArticleInternational journal of ophthalmology2025
Refractive status and ocular characteristics of preschool children with retinopathy of prematurity after different treatments.
Article in International journal of ophthalmology, 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.
- A Novel CRYBB2 Splicing Mutation Is Associated With Lens Extracellular Matrix Remodeling and Vascular Alterations in Congenital Cataract.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2026Article
- Impact of different treatment approaches on long-term refractive and visual outcomes in retinopathy of prematurity.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the changes in preschool refractive status, ocular biological parameters, and higher-order aberrations in children with retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) after retinal laser photocoagulation or anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) treatment and explore their underlying factors.
methodsThis observational study involved 118 eyes of 59 children, aged 3 to 6y, with ROP followed up between March 2023 and October 2024. They were divided into the laser, anti-VEGF, and anti-VEGF+laser groups. The laser group received a single session of laser photocoagulation. The anti-VEGF group received a single anti-VEGF treatment. The anti-VEGF+laser group received a single anti-VEGF treatment after birth followed by supplementary laser treatment within 2wk to 6mo. Ocular biological parameters were measured using IOL Master 700 and Pentacam HR. Right-eye higher-order aberrations were measured using the OPD-Scan III. Best-corrected visual acuities (BCVA), refractive statuses, ocular biological parameters, and higher-order aberrations were assessed and compared. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to evaluate the relationships among ocular biological parameters, higher-order aberrations, spherical equivalent (SE), and treatment methods. Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationships between the SE and higher-order aberrations.
resultsThe laser group had a higher incidence of myopia and a lower SE than the anti-VEGF group. The incidence of astigmatism and cylindrical power were significantly lower for the anti-VEGF than for the laser and anti-VEGF+laser groups (
conclusionChildren with ROP who received laser treatment have higher myopia and astigmatism than those who received anti-VEGF treatment. Children treated with laser or supplementary laser treatment have higher anterior corneal astigmatism, anterior corneal curvature, thicker lenses, whole-eye higher-order aberrations, and whole-eye trefoil. The cause of myopia in children with ROP after laser treatment is increased anterior corneal surface curvature and lens thickness.
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.