UNASSIGNED: Compare the detection rates of the 2013 Philippine Academy of Ophthalmology (PAO) guidelines for retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) screening and the 2005 PAO-Philippine Pediatric Society guidelines in identifying infants who develop ROP in the 5-year study period in the Philippine General Hospital (PGH). Secondary objectives include determination of ROP prevalence; correlation of gestational age (GA), birth weight (BW) and other risk factors to ROP; and identification of the most common intervention.
UNASSIGNED: Retrospective cross-sectional study of ROP records between 1 December 2013 and 30 November 2018 from the Medical Retina Service of the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences of the institution was studied. Variables with p value <0.05 were considered significant. STATA V.14 was used for all analysis.
UNASSIGNED: Only 851 of 898 infants screened for ROP were included in the study. Of these 698 would have been screened based on 2005 guidelines. All 118 infants with ROP were identified by both guidelines. Detection rate was higher using the 2005 than the 2013 guidelines (16.9% vs 13.3%, p value=0.0496). ROP prevalence was 9.7%. Among those with ROP, 70% have at least one identified risk factor, topped by sepsis, pneumonia, hyaline membrane disease, blood transfusion and oxygen supplementation. Only 8% required intervention consisting of laser, anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injection, surgery or in combination.
UNASSIGNED: In PGH, no infants with ROP were missed using the 2005 recommendations. There was no added benefit of increasing threshold for BW and GA as recommended by the 2013 PAO guidelines. Screening guidelines should, however, be tailored to institutional needs, requirements and experience.

In 2013, the new Dutch guideline for \"Venous Pathology\" was published. The guideline was a revision and update from the guideline \"Diagnostics and Treatment of Varicose Veins\" from 2009 and the guideline \"Venous Ulcer\" from 2005. A guideline for \"Deep Venous Pathology\" and one for \"Compression Therapy\" was added to the overall guideline \"Venous Pathology.\" The chapter about treatment of recurrent varicose veins after initial intervention was recently updated in 2015 and is reviewed here. The Dutch term \"recidief varices\" or the French \"récidive de varices\" should be used analogous to the English term \"recurrent varicose veins.\" The DCOP Guideline Development Group Neovarices concluded that \"recidief\" in Dutch actually suggests recurrence after apparent successful treatment and ignores the natural progression of venous disease in its own right. So the group opted to use the term \"neovarices.\" In the Dutch guideline, neovarices is meant to be an all embracing term for recurrent varicose veins caused by technical or tactical failure, evolvement from residual refluxing veins or natural progression of varicose vein disease at different locations of the treated leg after intervention. This report reviews the most important issues in the treatment of varicose vein recurrence, and discusses conclusions and recommendations of the Dutch Neovarices Guideline Committee.