MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2763040156 · doi:10.1093/pch/pxx086.062

RETINOPATHY OF PREMATURITY PRACTICES: A NATIONAL SURVEY OF CANADIAN NEONATAL INTENSIVE CARE UNITS

2017· article· en· W2763040156 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael Woodward

Notice bibliographique

RevuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2017
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueRetinopathy of Prematurity Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRetinopathy of prematurityMedicineIntensive careGuidelineObservational studyPediatricsNeonatal intensive care unitFamily medicineIntensive care medicineGestational agePregnancy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) accounts for significant morbidity in preterm infants. Early detection and treatment helps prevent adverse sequelae. The objective of this study was to survey the current screening inclusion criteria, treatment options, supportive care and post screening events for ROP in tertiary level Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICU’s) in Canada. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to survey the current screening inclusion criteria, treatment options, supportive care and post screening events for ROP in tertiary level Neonatal Intensive Care Units (NICUs) in Canada. DESIGN/METHODS: The study was designed as a prospective observational study where a survey was sent out to all 29 level three NICU’s across Canada. Following ethics exemption from the local research ethics board, a cross sectional survey was distributed across all level three NICU’s in Canada from September 1 to December 30, 2015. The tool was designed to elicit information on the screening practices for detection of ROP in tertiary NICU’s. In addition, information on the ROP screening processes, including the timing of screening and grounds for screening infants outside the criteria were collected. The survey also explored the screening process from an organizational standpoint in terms of the person responsible for initiating the screening processes, choice of mydriatics as well as organizing follow up. The practice and use of supportive measures during ROP screening and treatment options provided were also captured.The primary outcome was defined as adherence to the current CPS/COS or AAP guidelines. Specifically, guideline adherence was assessed for the following criteria: inclusion of an infant for ROP screening, age at which first ROP exam was initiated, circumstances where infants outside the screening criteria were deemed eligible for inclusion in the screening process and appropriate follow up processes. Secondary outcomes were defined as the supportive practices in use during the ROP screening examination. This includes the type and dose of mydriatics used, and measures to reduce photophobia and discomfort after ROP related therapeutic interventions. We also assessed healthcare system perspectives related to ROP screening and treatment. This was determined by the availability of dedicated personnel to coordinate the exam, pre-printed order sheets for medication and equipment required, measures to ensure appropriate follow up, use of RetCam (Clarity Medical Systems INC.), ROP treatment options (Anti vascular endothelial growth factor [anti-VEGF] and/or Laser) and treatment location. RESULTS: Twenty two level three nurseries responded to the survey (76 % response rate). Ten different ROP screening inclusion criteria were found to be in use with significant variation in gestational age and birth weight criteria. Reasons for screening babies outside any given unit’s inclusion criteria included unstable clinical course or high oxygen demand as decided by the attending neonatologist. Many other national variations also exist regarding the supportive, procedural and treatment protocols surrounding ROP screening such as Ret Cam use, use of mydriatics and preprinted order sheets. From a treatment standpoint, 50 percent of the centers preferred laser while the remaing 50 percent prefereed Anti VEGF(Vascular Endothelial Growth factor) CONCLUSION: Despite national guidelines, there exists significant variation in ROP screening inclusion criteria practices among neonatal units in Canada. For the many other aspects of ROP screening and treatment, for which there are no national guidelines there also exists significant variations in practice patterns. There is therefore an urgent need for better evidence based screening guidelines as well as a need to standardize supportive measures surrounding ROP screening and treatment, followed by efforts to encourage national uptake of these recommendations.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,047
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,060
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,961

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,047
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,082
Tête enseignante GPT0,348
Écart entre enseignants0,266 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2017
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePaediatrics & Child HealthMême sujetRetinopathy of Prematurity StudiesTravaux en français237 207