Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jun;67(6):855-859.
doi: 10.4103/ijo.IJO_561_18.

Prospective study of factors influencing timely versus delayed presentation of preterm babies for retinopathy of prematurity screening at a tertiary eye hospital in India The Indian Twin Cities ROP Screening (ITCROPS) data base report number 6

Affiliations

Prospective study of factors influencing timely versus delayed presentation of preterm babies for retinopathy of prematurity screening at a tertiary eye hospital in India The Indian Twin Cities ROP Screening (ITCROPS) data base report number 6

Deva Prasad Gopal et al. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2019 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the factors influencing timely versus delayed presentation of preterm babies for ROP evaluation.

Methods: Preterm babies (≤35 weeks gestational age, ≤2000 g birth weight) were prospectively included in the study. Timely presentation was defined as babies who presented for the first ROP screening within 30 days of birth and Delayed as more than 30 days of birth. An event survey to assess factors influencing timely vs delayed presentation was administered to parents/guardian of babies after obtaining informed consent.

Results: Data of 278 preterm babies (n = 139 timely vs n = 139 delayed presentation) collected in the event surveys were analyzed. The delayed presenters came at a median duration of 6.3 weeks (1st and 3rd quartiles: 5.3 and 9.1) after birth. The odds of any stage of ROP was 2.6 times and the odds of sight threatening ROP was 6.8 times in those presenting delayed compared to those presenting timely. Major Reasons for delayed presentation were not asked to do so/no referral from pediatrician in 64 (46%) participants and unaware of the importance by 46 (33%) participants.

Conclusion: Deviation from screening protocol is an important modifiable risk factor in ROP screening. The study findings suggest the need for creating awareness about timely screening and referral guidelines among the pediatricians involved in "care" of preterm infants at risk of developing ROP.

Keywords: Childhood blindness; retinopathy of prematurity; screening; timing of presentation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Predictive probability of presenting with Sight threatening ROP in timely Vs Delayed presentation (adjusted for effect of gestational age and birth weight)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Predictive probability of presenting with Sight threatening ROP based on postconceptional age (adjusted for effect of gestational age and birth weight)

References

    1. Blencowe H, Moxon S, Gilbert C. Update on blindness due to retinopathy of prematurity globally and in India. Indian Pediatr. 2016;53(Suppl 2):S89–92. - PubMed
    1. Ziakas NG, Cottrell DG, Milligan DW, Pennefather PM, Bamashmus MA, Clarke MP. Regionalisation of Retinopathy Of Prematurity (ROP) screening improves compliance with guidelines: An audit of ROP screening in the northern region of England. Br J Ophthalmol. 2001;85:807–10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jalali S, Anand R, Kumar H, Dogra MR, Azad R, Gopal L. Programme planning and screening strategy in retinopathy of prematurity. Indian J Ophthalmol. 2003;51:89–99. - PubMed
    1. Jalali S, Matalia J, Hussain A, Anand R. Modification of screening criteria for retinopathy of prematurity in India and other middle-income countries. Am J Ophthalmol. 2006;141:966–8. - PubMed
    1. Jalali S, Kesarwani S, Hussain A. Outcomes of a protocol-based management for zone 1 retinopathy of prematurity: The Indian twin cities ROP screening program report number 2. Am J Ophthalmol. 2011;151:719–724.e2. - PubMed