Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35237724›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open ophthalmology2022

Diagnostic accuracy of teleretinal screening for detection of diabetic retinopathy and age-related macular degeneration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Parsa Mehraban Far, Felicia Tai, Adeteju Ogunbameru, Petros Pechlivanoglou, Beate Sander, David T Wong, Michael H Brent, Tina Felfeli

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
6.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Parsa Mehraban FarDepartment of Ophthalmology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4543-4155
Felicia TaiDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Adeteju OgunbameruToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Petros PechlivanoglouInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Beate SanderToronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment (THETA) Collaborative, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
David T WongDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael H BrentDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tina FelfeliDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0927-3086
University Health Network · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAQueen's University · CASt. Michael's Hospital · CA

Funding

CIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of teleretinal screening compared with face-to-face examination for detection of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and age-related macular degeneration (AMD). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies (PRISMA-DTA). A comprehensive search of OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed from January 2010 to July 2021. QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess methodological quality and applicability of the studies. A bivariate random effects model was used to perform the meta-analysis. Referrable DR was defined as any disease severity equal to or worse than moderate non-proliferative DR or diabetic macular oedema (DMO).

results28 articles were included. Teleretinal screening achieved a sensitivity of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.82 to 0.96) and specificity of 0.88 (0.74 to 0.95) for any DR (13 studies, n=7207, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) low). Accuracy for referrable DR (10 studies, n=6373, GRADE moderate) was lower with a sensitivity of 0.88 (0.81 to 0.93) and specificity of 0.86 (0.79 to 0.90). After exclusion of ungradable images, the specificity for referrable DR increased to 0.95 (0.90 to 0.98), while the sensitivity remained nearly unchanged at 0.85 (0.76 to 0.91). Teleretinal screening achieved a sensitivity of 0.71 (0.49 to 0.86) and specificity of 0.88 (0.85 to 0.90) for detection of AMD (three studies, n=697, GRADE low).

conclusionTeleretinal screening is highly accurate for detecting any DR and DR warranting referral. Data for AMD screening is promising but warrants further investigation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020191994.

Indexed as

Diabetes MellitusDiabetic RetinopathyMacular DegenerationMacular EdemaHumansMass ScreeningReferral and Consultationangiogenesisdiagnostic tests/investigationretina

Identifiers

PMID35237724
PMCPMC8845326
OpenAlexW4211142031

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.