ArticleEye (London, England)2025
Diagnostic utility of artificial intelligence software through non-mydriatic digital retinography in the screening of diabetic retinopathy: an overview of reviews.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The successful implementation and use of decision support tools across clinical Ophthalmology.Eye (London, England) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the capability of artificial intelligence (AI) in screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) utilizing digital retinography captured by non-mydriatic (NM) ≥45° cameras, focusing on diagnosis accuracy, effectiveness, and clinical safety.
methodsWe performed an overview of systematic reviews (SRs) up to May 2023 in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science. We used AMSTAR-2 tool to assess the reliability of each SR. We reported meta-analysis estimates or ranges of diagnostic performance figures.
resultsOut of 1336 records, ten SRs were selected, most deemed low or critically low quality. Eight primary studies were included in at least five of the ten SRs and 125 in less than five SRs. No SR reported efficacy, effectiveness, or safety outcomes. The sensitivity and specificity for referable DR were 68-100% and 20-100%, respectively, with an AUROC range of 88 to 99%. For detecting DR at any stage, sensitivity was 79-100%, and specificity was 50-100%, with an AUROC range of 93 to 98%.
conclusionsAI demonstrates strong diagnostic potential for DR screening using NM cameras, with adequate sensitivity but variable specificity. While AI is increasingly integrated into routine practice, this overview highlights significant heterogeneity in AI models and the cameras used. Additionally, our study enlightens the low quality of existing systematic reviews and the significant challenge of integrating the rapidly growing volume of emerging evidence in this field. Policymakers should carefully evaluate AI tools in specific contexts, and future research must generate updated high-quality evidence to optimize their application and improve patient outcomes.
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.