ArticleEye (London, England)2024
The scanning CONfoCal Ophthalmoscopy foR DIAbetic eye screening (CONCORDIA) study paper 2.
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
- [Screening recommendations for glaucoma, age-related macular degeneration and diabetic eye diseases].Die Ophthalmologie · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine if the Eidon white light 60-degree field Scanning Confocal Ophthalmoscope (SCO) camera was safe to use with staged mydriasis in a Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (DESP).
methodsThe trial participants were recruited from people with diabetes attending appointments in DESP or Virtual Eye clinics for post-Covid delayed hospital appointments. Using staged mydriasis, the SCO images were taken before the pupils were dilated and compared to two-field 45 degrees mydriatic digital photography (the reference standard). Mydriatic SCO images were only compared to the reference standard if the non-mydriatic SCO images were unassessable.
results1050 patients were recruited, 35 individuals were withdrawn, the majority (18) due to an imaging protocol deviation leaving 1015 individuals (2029 eyes). Using staged mydriasis, the sensitivity and specificity for any retinopathy was 97.5% (95% CI: 96.4-98.4%) and 82.3% (95% CI: 79.6-84.7%) respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for referable retinopathy was 92.7% (95% CI: 89.9-94.9%) and 85.4% (95% CI: 83.6-87.2%) respectively. The total number of eyes that were unassessable with the Eidon without mydriasis was 85/2029 (4.2%), and after mydriasis was 34/2029 (1.7%) and, with the reference standard, 34/2029 (1.7% - not always the same images) were unassessable.
conclusionsThis study provides promising early results of the performance of the Eidon camera using staged mydriasis in a DESP which needs further evidence from a non-Caucasian population and from cost-effectiveness analyses.
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.