Clinical & experimental ophthalmology · 2016
Adequacy of published screening criteria for retinopathy of prematurity.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Taranath Deepa A, Oh Dickson D-S, Keane Miriam C, Fabel Helen, Marshall Peter
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Criteria for screening preterm infants for retinopathy of prematurity vary around the world. We aimed to analyse the efficacy of alternative screening criteria.
DESIGN: We collected retrospective data at a tertiary level neonatal nursery.
PARTICIPANTS: Our participants were 1007 babies, born between 1997 and 2011, at <32 weeks gestational age or <1500 g birth weight (as recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1996), who had completed follow-up to full retinal vascularization, with defined presence or absence of retinopathy of prematurity.
METHODS: We determined whether disease would be detected using an alternative Australian screening model (gestational age <30 weeks or birth weight <1250 g) or screening criteria utilized in developed countries with similar standards of neonatal care.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Detection of retinopathy of prematurity is our main outcome.
RESULTS: Using several of the alternative criteria, two neonates with clinically significant retinopathy of prematurity, one of whom required laser treatment to preserve sight, would not have been screened, and their disease may have gone undetected. Use of <30 weeks gestational age or <1500 g birth weight as the criteria would still have screened these infants but would have reduced the number of infants screened by 24.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Some commonly utilized international screening criteria for retinopathy of prematurity may risk clinically significant cases being missed and others may screen babies unnecessarily. Alternative criteria should be considered and '<30 weeks gestational age and/or <1500 g birth weight' appears a viable option.
DESIGN: We collected retrospective data at a tertiary level neonatal nursery.
PARTICIPANTS: Our participants were 1007 babies, born between 1997 and 2011, at <32 weeks gestational age or <1500 g birth weight (as recommended by the National Health and Medical Research Council in 1996), who had completed follow-up to full retinal vascularization, with defined presence or absence of retinopathy of prematurity.
METHODS: We determined whether disease would be detected using an alternative Australian screening model (gestational age <30 weeks or birth weight <1250 g) or screening criteria utilized in developed countries with similar standards of neonatal care.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Detection of retinopathy of prematurity is our main outcome.
RESULTS: Using several of the alternative criteria, two neonates with clinically significant retinopathy of prematurity, one of whom required laser treatment to preserve sight, would not have been screened, and their disease may have gone undetected. Use of <30 weeks gestational age or <1500 g birth weight as the criteria would still have screened these infants but would have reduced the number of infants screened by 24.9%.
CONCLUSIONS: Some commonly utilized international screening criteria for retinopathy of prematurity may risk clinically significant cases being missed and others may screen babies unnecessarily. Alternative criteria should be considered and '<30 weeks gestational age and/or <1500 g birth weight' appears a viable option.