SynthesisInternational ophthalmology2026
Vitreoretinal disease detection using artificial intelligence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in International 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
introductionEarly detection of vitreoretinal diseases (VRDs) is critical for preventing vision loss, and currently relies on the examination and interpretation of multimodal imaging techniques. Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a powerful tool to detect abnormalities in vitreoretinal morphology and ideally detect changes at earlier stages to allow for intervention. This meta-analysis evaluates and summarizes the diagnostic performance of AI models in the detection of VRDs using retinal imaging systems.
methodsThis study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023450207). A comprehensive electronic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science was conducted by three independent reviewers up to August 2023. Study validity was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool, which evaluates risk of bias across four domains and applicability concerns across three domains. Eligible articles were categorized into nine VRD subgroups-age related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, retinal vascular diseases, retinal dystrophies, Cystoid macular edema, vitreoretinal interface disorders, retinal detachment, Central serous chorioretinopathy, and myopic retinopathy-and included in the meta-analysis. Pooled estimates of accuracy (PEA), sensitivity (PESen), and specificity (PESpe) were calculated for all selected studies.
resultsA total of 195 studies were included in the final analysis, yielding an overall PEA of 95.76% (95% CI: 95.0-96.47), PESen of 91.94% (95% CI: 90.72-93.08) and PESpe of 96.09% (95% CI: 95.27-96.79). In the subgroup analysis, most AI models had a PEA > 90%, especially convolutional neural networks (CNN), followed by support vector machine (SVM) and random forest (RF).
conclusionsAI diagnostic tools, particularly CNNs, have demonstrated robust performance in VRDs detection. However, results from studies with limited generalizability should be applied cautiously in real-world settings. Further exploration of emerging models, such as large language models (LLMs), is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41591569What 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.