ArticleEye (London, England)2024
The Scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 1.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The NHS Diabetic Eye Screening Programme: Insights from a Research and Innovation Needs Assessment.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
- Ultra-widefield color fundus photography in diabetic retinopathy: from panretinal assessment to multimodal integration.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis project was to determine the performance of the Zeiss Clarus 700 (Clarus) and the Optos California (Optos) with staged mydriasis in a Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP).
methodsTrial participants were recruited from people attending appointments in DESP or Virtual Eye clinics for delayed hospital appointments. Non-mydriatic photographs from the Clarus and Optos cameras were compared to 2-field 45 degrees mydriatic digital photography (the reference standard) and mydriatic photographs compared if the non-mydriatic photos were unassessable (staged mydriasis).
results1573 patients were recruited. 76 individuals were withdrawn, leaving 1497 individuals (2993 eyes). For the Clarus and the Optos, the sensitivity for any retinopathy were 94.2% (95% CI: 92.9-95.3%) and 91.9% (95% CI: 90.5-93.2%) with specificities of 87.3% (95% CI: 85.4-89.0%) and 78.1% (95% CI: 75.7-80.3%) respectively. For referable DR the sensitivities for the Clarus and Optos were 86.0% (95% CI: 82.9-88.8%) and 77.6% (95% CI: 73.9-80.9%) with specificities of 92.8% (95% CI: 91.7-93.8%) and 95.4% (95% CI: 94.5-96.2%) respectively. The Clarus and Optos without mydriasis produced 100 (3.3%) and 152 (5.1%) unassessable eyes respectively, and after staged mydriasis 51 (1.7%) and 102 (3.4%) respectively with 52 (1.7%) reference standard images unassessable.
conclusionsThis study reports the performance of the Clarus and the Optos using staged mydriasis in DR screening with wider fields detecting more referable retinopathy peripherally with some reduction in sensitivity centrally for macular lesions.
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.