Pediatrics · 2010
Retinopathy of prematurity in 7 neonatal units in Rio de Janeiro: screening criteria and workload implications.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Zin Andrea A, Moreira Maria Elisabeth Lopes, Bunce Catey, Darlow Brian A, Gilbert Clare E
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The goals were to determine optimal screening criteria for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in 7 neonatal units in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and to explore the workload implications of applying different criteria.
METHODS: Infants with birth weights of < or = 2000 g or gestational age of <37 weeks were examined by 3 ophthalmologists in 7 of the largest units in Rio de Janeiro, during a 34-month period. ROP was classified by using the international classification, and laser treatment was given to infants developing type 1 ROP.
RESULTS: A total of 3437 (87%) of 3953 eligible infants were examined, of whom 124 (3.6% [range: 2.1%-7.8%]) were treated. Eleven infants were treated for aggressive posterior ROP. Appropriate screening criteria for the 2 NICUs with high survival rates (ie, > or =80% among infants with birth weights of <1500 g) would be < or =1500 g or <32 weeks. For NICUs with low survival rates (ie, <80%), appropriate criteria would be < or =1500 g or < or =35 weeks. UK, US, and previous Brazilian criteria would all miss infants needing treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: ROP programs in Brazil should use the wider criteria of < or =1500 g or < or =35 weeks until further evidence-based criteria become available, although this would mean a slight increase in workload across the city, compared with use of the narrower criteria in the better units. Whether survival rates can be used as a proxy to indicate screening criteria requires further investigation.
METHODS: Infants with birth weights of < or = 2000 g or gestational age of <37 weeks were examined by 3 ophthalmologists in 7 of the largest units in Rio de Janeiro, during a 34-month period. ROP was classified by using the international classification, and laser treatment was given to infants developing type 1 ROP.
RESULTS: A total of 3437 (87%) of 3953 eligible infants were examined, of whom 124 (3.6% [range: 2.1%-7.8%]) were treated. Eleven infants were treated for aggressive posterior ROP. Appropriate screening criteria for the 2 NICUs with high survival rates (ie, > or =80% among infants with birth weights of <1500 g) would be < or =1500 g or <32 weeks. For NICUs with low survival rates (ie, <80%), appropriate criteria would be < or =1500 g or < or =35 weeks. UK, US, and previous Brazilian criteria would all miss infants needing treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: ROP programs in Brazil should use the wider criteria of < or =1500 g or < or =35 weeks until further evidence-based criteria become available, although this would mean a slight increase in workload across the city, compared with use of the narrower criteria in the better units. Whether survival rates can be used as a proxy to indicate screening criteria requires further investigation.