Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J AAPOS. 2017 Dec 6;22(1):61–65.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jaapos.2017.10.006

Table 4.

Follow-up outcomes

Outcome Bevacizumab group
(n = 7)
Laser group
(n = 9)
Difference in medians (95% CI) P value

Median (range) Median (range)
Corrected age at follow-up, months 21.2 (18.1–28.5) 19.1 (18.0–21.4)     1.9 (−0.1 to 9.0) 0.10
Weigh t percentile for age 18 (0 – 56)   7 (0 – 39)   14 (− 7 to 49) 0.27
Length percentile for age   8 (3–83)a 29 (2–73) −11 (−54 to 16) 0.39
Head circumference percentile for age   0 (0–77)a   8 (0–77)   −2 (−24 to 47) 0.46
Cognitive composite score 85 (60 – 100) 65 (55 – 100)   10 (− 5 to 30) 0.06
Language composite score 89 (59–91) 71 (47–106)   12 (−15 to 30) 0.18
Motor composite score 79 (58 – 100) 70 (55 – 100)b     8 (−15 to 33) 0.22

            No. (%)         No. (%)     RR (95% CI)

On oxygen at follow-up   1 (14)b   0         NA 0.40
Gross motor function level     Normal/n
1.61 (0.67 to 3.83)
0.85
 Normal   5 (71)   4 (44)
 1   0   2 (22)
 2   1 (14)   1 (11)
 3   0   1 (11)
 4   1 (14)   1 (11)
 5   0   0
Cerebral palsy   2 (28)   2 (22) 1.29 (0.24 to 6.99) 1.00

CI, confidence interval; RR, relative risk.

a

2 missing.

b

1 missing.