ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
Accuracy of Low-Cost, Smartphone-Based Retinal Photography for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- The march to harmonized imaging standards for retinal imaging.Progress in retinal and eye research · 2025Review
- Diabetic macular edema (DME): dissecting pathogenesis, prognostication, diagnostic modalities along with current and futuristic therapeutic insights.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2024Review
- Clinical Applications and Future Directions of Smartphone Fundus Imaging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Accuracy of Low-Cost, Smartphone-Based Retinal Photography for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness. Early DR screening is essential, but the infrastructure can be less affordable in low resource countries. This study aims to review the accuracy of low-cost smartphone-based fundus cameras for DR screening in adult patients with diabetes. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search to find studies that reported the sensitivity and specificity of low-cost smartphone-based devices for fundus photography in adult patients with diabetes. We searched three databases (MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Scopus) and one register (Cochrane CENTRAL). We presented the accuracy values by grouping the diagnosis into three: any DR, referrable DR, and diabetic macular oedema (DMO). Risk of bias and applicability of the studies were assessed using QUADAS-2. Results: Five out of 294 retrieved records were included with a total of six smartphone-based devices reviewed. All of the reference diagnostic methods used in the included studies were either indirect ophthalmoscopy or slit-lamp examinations and all smartphone-based devices' imaging protocols used mydriatic drops. The reported sensitivity and specificity for any DR were 52-92.2% and 73.3-99%; for referral DR were 21-91.4% and 64.9-100%; and for DMO were 29.4-81% and 95-100%, respectively. Conclusion: Sensitivity available low-cost smartphone-based devices for DR screening were acceptable and their specificity particularly for detecting referrable DR and DMO were considerably good. These findings support their potential utilization for DR screening in a low resources setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.