ArticleFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Optimizing retinopathy of prematurity screening in China using a single objective criterion: a 10-year retrospective analysis.
Article in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. 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
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a single objective screening criterion-birth weight (BW) < 2000g or gestational age (GA) < 32 weeks-for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) detection, and to provide evidence for reducing over-screening caused by subjective clinical judgment. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 1,453 premature infants who underwent ROP screening at Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital (2014-2024). Fundus examinations were performed using binocular indirect ophthalmoscopy or RetCam III. A two-tier grouping strategy was adopted: objective criterion group (BW < 2000g or GA < 32 weeks) vs. subjective group (BW ≥ 2000g and GA ≥ 32 weeks). The objective group was further subdivided into three subgroups. ROP and severe ROP were diagnosed following Results: Among 1,453 infants (618 inborn, 836 referred), 705 ROP cases (48.5%) and 370 severe ROP cases (25.5%) were identified. The objective group covered 98.2% of ROP cases and 99.2% of severe ROP cases. ROP and severe ROP prevalence were significantly higher in the objective group than in the subjective group (both Conclusion: The single objective criterion of BW < 2000g or GA < 32 weeks can effectively identify the high-risk population for ROP. Subjective extended screening has minimal clinical value in tertiary neonatal care institutions; it is recommended that the subjective high-risk clause may be cautiously omitted in clinical practice within tertiary hospitals with advanced neonatal care capabilities.
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.