OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to uncover the most effective and safe criterion to implement for retinopathy of prematurity screening in Denmark. METHODS: This retrospective national cohort study is based on data from 3 national registers. These registers provided on infants treated for retinopathy of prematurity, infants in need of treatment but missed by the present screening program, and the candidate neonates for advanced retinopathy of prematurity development A nonlinear logistic regression model was fitted to the data, and various screening criteria were evaluated. RESULTS: During the study period (2002-2006), 116 infants were treated for retinopathy of prematurity, no treatment-demanding retinopathy of prematurity infants were missed by the screening program, and 182 premature infants were candidates for developing treatment-demanding retinopathy of prematurity. Screening criteria combining gestational age at delivery and birth weight limits and new risk-based criteria were compared with regards to their effectiveness. The risk-based criteria were the most effective. Use of the 0.13% risk-based criterion to define the population to be screened resulted in the detection of all treated infants in the study period and 17.4% fewer infants to screen. The model predicted this criterion to result in 1 missed case of treatment-demanding retinopathy of prematurity every 11 years and 1 case of blindness every 18 years in Denmark. CONCLUSIONS: Screening criteria based on risk estimates of developing treatment-demanding retinopathy of prematurity are the most effective for retinopathy-of-prematurity screening. The risk-based criterion of 0.13% can safely be implemented for future retinopathy-of-prematurity screening in Denmark.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to uncover the most effective and safe criterion to implement for retinopathy of prematurity screening in Denmark. METHODS: This retrospective national cohort study is based on data from 3 national registers. These registers provided on infants treated for retinopathy of prematurity, infants in need of treatment but missed by the present screening program, and the candidate neonates for advanced retinopathy of prematurity development A nonlinear logistic regression model was fitted to the data, and various screening criteria were evaluated. RESULTS: During the study period (2002-2006), 116 infants were treated for retinopathy of prematurity, no treatment-demanding retinopathy of prematurity infants were missed by the screening program, and 182 premature infants were candidates for developing treatment-demanding retinopathy of prematurity. Screening criteria combining gestational age at delivery and birth weight limits and new risk-based criteria were compared with regards to their effectiveness. The risk-based criteria were the most effective. Use of the 0.13% risk-based criterion to define the population to be screened resulted in the detection of all treated infants in the study period and 17.4% fewer infants to screen. The model predicted this criterion to result in 1 missed case of treatment-demanding retinopathy of prematurity every 11 years and 1 case of blindness every 18 years in Denmark. CONCLUSIONS: Screening criteria based on risk estimates of developing treatment-demanding retinopathy of prematurity are the most effective for retinopathy-of-prematurity screening. The risk-based criterion of 0.13% can safely be implemented for future retinopathy-of-prematurity screening in Denmark.
Authors: Sang Jin Kim; Alexander D Port; Ryan Swan; J Peter Campbell; R V Paul Chan; Michael F Chiang Journal: Surv Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-19 Impact factor: 6.048
Authors: Emily A McCourt; Gui-Shuang Ying; Anne M Lynch; Alan G Palestine; Brandie D Wagner; Erica Wymore; Lauren A Tomlinson; Gil Binenbaum Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 7.389
Authors: Aldina Pivodic; Helena Johansson; Lois E H Smith; Anna-Lena Hård; Chatarina Löfqvist; Bradley A Yoder; M Elizabeth Hartnett; Carolyn Wu; Marie-Christine Bründer; Wolf A Lagrèze; Andreas Stahl; Abbas Al-Hawasi; Eva Larsson; Pia Lundgren; Lotta Gränse; Birgitta Sunnqvist; Kristina Tornqvist; Agneta Wallin; Gerd Holmström; Kerstin Albertsson-Wikland; Staffan Nilsson; Ann Hellström Journal: Br J Ophthalmol Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 5.908