SynthesisEuropean journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparative diagnostic accuracy of photographic methods for detecting diabetic retinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains a leading cause of vision loss globally. Timely detection through photographic screening is key to prevention, yet considerable variability exists across imaging protocols. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of various photographic strategies for DR detection to inform evidence-based screening practices. We systematically searched six databases and trial registries up to June 2023. Eligible studies included adults (≥18 years) with type 1 or 2 diabetes undergoing DR screening using fundus photography, compared against a reference standard (7-field ETDRS or dilated ophthalmoscopy). We performed bivariate meta-analyses for direct comparisons (e.g., mydriatic vs. non-mydriatic), and indirect armbased meta-analyses. Eighty studies (over 50,000 participants) were included. Direct comparisons including 8 studies (16 arms, 2967 participants), found that the sensitivity for detecting any DR was comparable between mydriatic and non-mydriatic imaging (90% vs. 89%), though specificity was lower without dilation (85% vs. 90%). Sensitivity improved with the number of fields (from 0.82 with 1-field to 0.98 with ≥4-fields), particularly in nonmydriatic settings. Results also showed an observed heterogeneity in accuracy of screening across settings showing the need for continuous auditing of screening performance. Photographic screening for DR was effective across multiple configurations. Two-field mydriatic protocols offer high diagnostic accuracy, while trained graders and portable devices can enhance scalability. Findings support the design of structured screening programs adapted to local resources and clinical priorities.
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.