Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Changing the status quo bias
  1. Kamron N Khan1,
  2. Manir Ali1,
  3. Carmel Toomes1,
  4. Chris F Inglehearn1,
  5. John Bradbury2
  1. 1Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, St. James' University Hospital, Leeds, UK
  2. 2Bradford Royal Infirmary, Duckworth Lane, Bradford, UK
  1. Correspondence to Kamron N Khan, Leeds Institute of Molecular Medicine, St. James' University Hospital, Leeds LS7 9TF, UK; medknk{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with interest the article by Durnian and Clark who presented a retrospective cohort of infants that fell outside evidence level B guidelines for screening retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) and we wish to discuss some further points.1 The data presented in table 1 highlight that all 11 babies would be missed if screening was according to level B evidence and 2 of these would still be missed using the good practice points evidence. An alternative conclusion would be that if the guidelines had been amended to screen infants under 32 weeks or 1251 g then one extra baby would have been missed (who fortunately did not require treatment). It is also debatable based on the information presented, if any of the babies absolutely required treatment as others …

View Full Text


  • Linked articles 180307.

  • Funding The study was supported by the Wellcome Trust.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles