ArticleJournal of ophthalmic & vision research2025
A Biometric Comparison Between Myopic and Non-myopic Eyes Treated for Retinopathy of Prematurity.
Article in Journal of ophthalmic & vision research, 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: This study aims to assess the biometric alterations contributing to myopia in children who have undergone treatment for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and compare these changes with those observed in full-term myopic children. Methods: Children who had undergone ROP treatment were recruited and classified according to their treatment methods. An age-matched group of myopic patients with no history of ROP treatment was also included. Complete perinatal history was collected, and a comprehensive ophthalmic examination, including cycloplegic refraction, was conducted. The biometric data of children in each study group were gathered using the IOL Master and Pentacam. Results: The study recruited 14 patients in the intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) group, 17 patients in the laser-treated group, and 13 individuals in the control group. There was no significant difference between the two patient groups regarding gestational age, birth weight, and age. In the IVB group, 50% of patients were myopic, compared to 52.9% in the laser-treated group. The incidence of high myopia was significantly higher in the laser-treated group ( Conclusion: Eyes with a history of ROP treatment, whether myopic or non-myopic, should be considered distinct entities. In patients who have undergone ROP treatment and have not developed myopia, changes in refractive error are primarily influenced by alterations in axial length, rather than changes in the anterior segment. Furthermore, children with myopia and a history of treatment for ROP (either IVB or laser) exhibit different biometric changes compared to myopic children without a history of ROP treatment, further underscoring their unique characteristics.
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.