The British journal of ophthalmology · 2002
Screening for retinopathy of prematurity.
Клинический случайСтатьяНазвание 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.
Andruscavage L, Weissgold D J
Аннотация
AIM: A cross sectional (prevalence) study was performed to assess the usefulness and sensitivity of commonly employed criteria to identify infants for routine ophthalmoscopic screening for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP).
METHODS: At a tertiary care centre between 1 January 1992 and 30 June 1998, experienced vitreoretinal specialists screened 438 premature infants for ROP. Retinal maturity and the presence of ROP were determined by indirect ophthalmoscopic examinations.
RESULTS: Of the eligible infants surviving 28 days, 276 (91.7%) of 301 infants with birth weights </=1500 g and 162 (52.3%) of 310 infants with birth weights between 1501 and 2500 g were screened for ROP. 10 (3.9%) of the 310 infants with larger birth weights developed stage 1 or 2 ROP. Two (0.6%) of the 310 infants with larger birth weights developed stage 3 ROP. These two infants progressed to threshold ROP and required treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Relatively restrictive criteria to identify premature infants eligible for routine ophthalmoscopic screening for ROP may be the cause for some infants going unexamined and their ROP undetected.
METHODS: At a tertiary care centre between 1 January 1992 and 30 June 1998, experienced vitreoretinal specialists screened 438 premature infants for ROP. Retinal maturity and the presence of ROP were determined by indirect ophthalmoscopic examinations.
RESULTS: Of the eligible infants surviving 28 days, 276 (91.7%) of 301 infants with birth weights </=1500 g and 162 (52.3%) of 310 infants with birth weights between 1501 and 2500 g were screened for ROP. 10 (3.9%) of the 310 infants with larger birth weights developed stage 1 or 2 ROP. Two (0.6%) of the 310 infants with larger birth weights developed stage 3 ROP. These two infants progressed to threshold ROP and required treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Relatively restrictive criteria to identify premature infants eligible for routine ophthalmoscopic screening for ROP may be the cause for some infants going unexamined and their ROP undetected.