Evidence mapPaperPMID 30404665Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2018

Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of detection of any level of diabetic retinopathy using digital retinal imaging.

Mapa Mudiyanselage Prabhath Nishantha Piyasena, Gudlavalleti Venkata S Murthy, Jennifer L Y Yip, Clare Gilbert, Tunde Peto, Iris Gordon, Suwin Hewage, Sureshkumar Kamalakannan

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Telemedicine in diabetic retinopathy screening in India.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mapa Mudiyanselage Prabhath Nishantha PiyasenaClinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK. prabhath.piyasena@lshtm.ac.uk.
Gudlavalleti Venkata S MurthyClinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Jennifer L Y YipClinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Clare GilbertClinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Tunde PetoSchool of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen's University, 97, Lisburn Road, Belfast, BT9 7BL, Northern Ireland.
Iris GordonClinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London, WC1E 7HT, UK.
Suwin HewageRetina Research Unit, National Eye Hospital, Deans Road, Colombo, 01000, Sri Lanka.
Sureshkumar KamalakannanIndian Institute of Public Health, Plot No 1 Kavuri Hills Madhapur, Hyderabad, 500033, India.

Funding

Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust coordinated through the Commonwealth Eye Health Consortium - United Kingdom ITCRZC6812
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVisual impairment from diabetic retinopathy (DR) is an increasing global public health concern, which is preventable with screening and early treatment. Digital retinal imaging has become a preferred choice as it enables higher coverage of screening. The aim of this review is to evaluate how different characteristics of the DR screening (DRS) test impact on diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and its relevance to a low-income setting.

methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search to identify clinic-based studies on DRS using digital retinal imaging of people with DM (PwDM). Summary estimates of different sub-groups were calculated using DTA values weighted according to the sample size. The DTA of each screening method was derived after exclusion of ungradable images and considering the eye as the unit of analysis. The meta-analysis included studies which measured DTA of detecting any level of DR. We also examined the effect on detection from using different combinations of retinal fields, pupil status, index test graders and setting.

resultsSix thousand six hundred forty-six titles and abstracts were retrieved, and data were extracted from 122 potentially eligible full reports. Twenty-six studies were included in the review, and 21 studies, mostly from high-income settings (18/21, 85.7%), were included in the meta-analysis. The highest sensitivity was observed in the mydriatic greater than two field strategy (92%, 95% CI 90-94%). The highest specificity was observed in greater than two field methods (94%, 95% CI 93-96%) where mydriasis did not affect specificity. Overall, there was no difference in sensitivity between non-mydriatic and mydriatic methods (86%, 95% CI 85-87) after exclusion of ungradable images. The highest DTA (sensitivity 90%, 95% CI 88-91%; specificity 95%, 95% CI 94-96%) was observed when screening was delivered at secondary/tertiary level clinics.

conclusionsNon-mydriatic two-field strategy could be a more pragmatic approach in starting DRS programmes for facility-based PwDM in low-income settings, with dilatation of the pupils of those who have ungradable images. There was insufficient evidence in primary studies to draw firm conclusions on how graders' background influences DTA. Conducting more context-specific DRS validation studies in low-income and non-ophthalmic settings can be recommended.

Indexed as

MydriaticsDiabetic RetinopathyHumansMass ScreeningPhotographySensitivity and SpecificityMydriaticsDiabetes mellitusDiabetic retinopathyDiagnostic test accuracyDigital imagingLow incomeMydriaticNon-mydriaticScreening

Identifiers

PMID30404665
PMCPMC6222985

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.