What are the most effective medical interventions for managing retinopathy of prematurity in preterm infants born ? : A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) is a leading cause of preventable childhood blindness affecting preterm infants. Laser photocoagulation, the traditional standard of care, is effective but inherently destructive, leading to permanent peripheral visual field defects and a high incidence of myopia. The introduction of anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF) agents like bevacizumab offers a less destructive approach with the potential for better refractive outcomes. However, concerns regarding disease recurrence and potential systemic effects persist. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate and synthesize current evidence to determine the most effective medical interventions for ROP. Methods: This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed across PubMed, Semantic Scholar, Springer, and Google Scholar. Twenty-seven studies, including randomized controlled trials and comparative studies evaluating anti-VEGF therapies and laser photocoagulation, were included. The primary outcomes analyzed were disease regression, recurrence rates, and long-term structural and refractive outcomes. Results: The evidence consistently showed that both anti-VEGF therapy and laser photocoagulation are highly effective in achieving initial disease regression. A significant advantage for anti-VEGF therapy is more favorable long-term refractive outcomes, particularly a significantly lower incidence of high myopia compared to laser. However, this is counterbalanced by a variable but significant risk of disease recurrence following anti-VEGF monotherapy, a risk that is lower with laser treatment. Evidence also suggests clinical differences between agents, with one study finding a lower recurrence rate for bevacizumab compared to aflibercept. Conclusion: The optimal management for ROP requires balancing significant trade-offs. Anti-VEGF therapy is often the superior choice for posterior disease (Zone I) and offers the compelling benefit of better long-term vision by reducing high myopia. Conversely, laser photocoagulation provides a more definitive treatment with lower recurrence rates but at the known cost of peripheral vision. Combination strategies are emerging to leverage the strengths of both modalities. Ultimately, the treatment decision must be individualized, weighing the risk of recurrence and unknown systemic effects of anti-VEGF against the certainty of peripheral field loss and myopia from laser.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.113 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".