SynthesisJournal of medical systems2025
Describing the Performance and the Infrastructure Requirements of the Existing Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) Screening Algorithms for Diabetic Patients: an Umbrella Review.
Synthesis in Journal of medical systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
AI-based diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening algorithms have been evaluated in many countries and have shown promise in expanding access to screening, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the literature lacks guidance on which algorithms are best suited for these settings. This umbrella review summarizes current evidence on the performance, infrastructure needs, and global implementation of AI-based DR screening tools. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review (PRISMA) guidelines, systematic reviews were identified through searches in PubMed, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Google Scholar up to April 18, 2024. Eligible studies were reviewed, and findings were presented in tables and graphics. Twenty systematic reviews were included. Most algorithms were developed, validated, and used in high-income countries, with none developed or implemented in Africa. More than 400 algorithms were identified, of which 161 had some form of clinical validation, and 31 were validated in real-world settings. Sensitivity ranged from 66.0% to 100.0%, specificity from 59.5% to 98.7%, and AUROC from 87.8% to 99.1%. Only 12 algorithms have received regulatory approval, and 11 of them are currently used in clinical practice. AI-based DR screening models hold promise as diagnostic tools across diverse clinical settings, particularly where ophthalmic resources are limited. However, successful implementation depends on appropriate infrastructure, local validation, and regulatory support. Addressing the significant gaps in algorithm development and validation in Africa is essential to ensure equitable access and effective use of AI in DR screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41165895What 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.