ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2025
Modelling direct healthcare costs for screening and treatment of retinopathy of prematurity among infants born at gestational age <24 weeks: findings from a Swedish cohort.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveSweden has a long-standing tradition of actively managing infants born extremely preterm at 22-23 weeks' gestational age. This study analyses screening and treatment pathways for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in these infants, assessing costs and health outcomes to develop a model of direct healthcare costs. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: The cohort included all 399 infants born at 22-23 weeks in Sweden (2007-2018) who underwent ROP screening, recorded in the national ROP registry SWEDROP. A health economic model estimated costs based on three primary pathways: (1) no sight-saving treatment, (2) laser as initial treatment and (3) anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) as initial treatment. Pathways 2 and 3 were further divided into single and multiple treatments. Costs were calculated using screening frequency, treatment and neonatal care expenses. Register data were verified against medical records. An expanded model incorporated gestational age and comorbidities.
resultsIn the basic model, 36% received laser (16 screenings on average; 32% required retreatment), while 7% received anti-VEGF injections (25 screenings; 69% required retreatment). The cost of screening and treating an infant with laser was Int$ 18 590, compared with Int$ 20 792 for anti-VEGF. The expanded models showed similar screening and treatment frequencies.
conclusionDespite similar overall costs, the higher screening burden in the anti-VEGF group (25 vs 16 screenings) raises concerns regarding cost-effectiveness and potential health impacts. Main limitations include the use of cost data from a single hospital, potential selection bias between treatment groups and limited precision in small subgroups. These findings lay the groundwork for future research on long-term health and cost outcomes in this vulnerable population.
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.