ArticleBMC ophthalmology2024
Follow-up in a point-of-care diabetic retinopathy program in Pittsburgh: a non-concurrent retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Diabetic retinopathy treatment cascade and care continuum in the USA: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2026Pooled it
- [TOVIS pilot study-Aftercare effects of teleophthalmological diagnostics in senior living].Die Ophthalmologie · 2026Article
- Real-World Evaluation of AI-Driven Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in Public Health Settings: Validation and Implementation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Associations Between Diabetic Retinopathy and Frailty: Insights From the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Mendelian Randomization.Translational vision science & technology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Point-of-Care Diabetic Retinopathy Examination Program (POCDREP) was initiated in 2015 at the University of Pittsburgh/UPMC in response to low diabetic retinopathy (DR) examination rates, a condition affecting a quarter of people with diabetes mellitus (PwDM) and leading to blindness. Early detection and treatment are critical with DR prevalence projected to triple by 2050. Approximately, half of PwDM in the U.S. undergo yearly examinations, and there are reported varying follow-up rates with eye care professionals, with limited data on the factors influencing these trends. POCDREP aimed to address screening and follow-up gap, partnering with diverse healthcare entities, including primary care sites, free clinics, and federally qualified health centers.
methodsA non-concurrent retrospective cohort study spanning 2015-2018 examined data using electronic health records of patients who underwent retinal imaging. Imaging was performed using 31 cameras across various settings, with results interpreted by ophthalmologists. Follow-up recommendations were made for cases with vision-threatening DR (VTDR), incidental findings, or indeterminate results. Factors influencing follow-up were analyzed, including demographic, clinical, and imaging-related variables. We assessed the findings at follow-up of patients with indeterminate results.
resultsOut of 7,733 examinations (6,242 patients), 32.25% were recommended for follow-up. Among these, 5.57% were classified as having VTDR, 14.34% had other ocular findings such as suspected glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and 12.13% were indeterminate. Of those recommended for follow-up, only 30.87% were assessed by eye care within six months. Older age, marriage, and severe DR were associated with higher odds of following up. Almost two thirds (64.35%) of the patients with indeterminate exams were found with a vision-threatening disease at follow-up.
conclusionThe six-month follow-up rate was found to be suboptimal. Influential factors for follow-up included age, marital status, and the severity of diabetic retinopathy (DR). While the program successfully identified a range of ocular conditions, screening initiatives must extend beyond mere disease detection. Ensuring patient follow-up is crucial to DR preventing programs mission. Recommended strategies to improve follow-up adherence include education, incentives, and personalized interventions. Additional research is necessary to pinpoint modifiable factors that impact adherence and to develop targeted interventions.
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.