Recurrence of Retinopathy of Prematurity Following Anti-vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (Anti-VEGF) Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is a neovascular disorder which affects premature infants and can lead to childhood blindness. Treatment includes laser photocoagulation and intravitreal anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injections, both effective options. However, laser photocoagulation can lead to refractive errors, while anti-VEGF therapy can result in disease recurrence. Our systematic review aimed to evaluate the recurrence rates of ROP following treatment with anti-VEGF agents compared to other anti-VEGF agents and laser photocoagulation. We also aimed to measure the retreatment intervals and assess successful retreatment rates to identify the most effective treatment modality. Our review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and included both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized comparative studies (NCS). A thorough search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases was performed. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias (RoB2) tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Random-effects and fixed-effects models were used to measure pooled estimates. The outcomes were reported as risk ratios (RR) and standardized mean differences (SMD). A total of 21 studies (six RCTs and 15 NCS) with 6,152 eyes were included. Overall, anti-VEGF agents showed a higher risk of recurrence compared to laser photocoagulation (RR=2.14, 95% CI: 1.06-4.33, p=0.03). Conbercept demonstrated a significantly lower risk of recurrence than laser photocoagulation and ranibizumab (RR=0.47, 95% CI: 0.39-0.58, p<0.00001), while aflibercept showed a higher recurrence risk compared to bevacizumab (RR=12.61, 95% CI: 6.43-24.73, p<0.00001). Bevacizumab was associated with a longer retreatment interval than laser photocoagulation (SMD=0.89, 95% CI: 0.61-1.17, p<0.00001). No significant differences in retreatment success rates between bevacizumab and laser photocoagulation were observed. Anti-VEGF therapy is effective in the treatment of ROP; however, it is associated with a higher risk of recurrence compared to laser photocoagulation. Conbercept shows greater efficacy in reducing recurrence risk and prolonging the retreatment interval compared to ranibizumab. Aflibercept demonstrated inconsistent outcomes. No significant difference in recurrence rates was observed between bevacizumab and ranibizumab. Recurrences occurred significantly later when anti-VEGF therapy was used compared to laser photocoagulation. Successful retreatment rates between bevacizumab and laser photocoagulation were similar.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,026 | 0,011 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».