| Title |
Retinopathy of prematurity: preferred practice patterns among pediatric ophthalmologists
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s161504 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Samiksha Fouzdar Jain, Helen H Song, Shaza N Al-Holou, Linda A Morgan, Donny W Suh |
| Abstract |
The treatment of retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) is not standardized and can vary significantly between providers. This study aims to determine preferred practices in treating ROP by globally surveying pediatric ophthalmologists. Between January and February 2017, an international pediatric ophthalmology interest group was invited to complete an anonymous survey of 18 questions. The main objectives were to determine the preferred first line of treatment for ROP, the preferred dosage of intravitreal bevacizumab (IVB) used, and the outcome and possible complications following bevacizumab injection. Out of 101 pediatric ophthalmologists, 72 (71.8%) stated that they had direct involvement in the treatment of ROP. When presented with type 1 ROP which requires treatment, 69 ophthalmologists (68.3%) stated that they prefer laser treatment over bevacizumab, and 33 ophthalmologists (32.7%) stated they would recommend bevacizumab as a first choice. Ninety-three ophthalmologists (92.1%) reported the success of 1 laser treatment between 75% and 100%, and 35 ophthalmologists (34.7%) perceive bevacizumab to be 75%-100% successful. Half dose of adult-prescribed bevacizumab at 0.625 mg/0.05 mL was preferred by 47 of the ophthalmologists (46.5%). No cases of endophthalmitis were reported with intravitreal injection. Laser photoablation remains the preferred mode of treatment for ROP among surveyed ophthalmologists across the world. Though bevacizumab is currently being used, this form of treatment is not as common, primarily due to the unknown safety profile and potential long-term ramifications of the drug. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 20% |
| Canada | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 40% |
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 19% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 3 | 12% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 19% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 12 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2018.
All research outputs
#8,538,940
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#822
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,333
of 339,234 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#19
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,234 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.