ReviewCureus2026
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Non-ophthalmologist Physicians and Optometrists Regarding Diabetic Retinopathy: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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.
- Review
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
Knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) of non-ophthalmologist physicians and optometrists are crucial for early detection and timely referral of patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). This scoping review aims to systematically map the available evidence on KAP related to diabetic retinopathy (DR) among these healthcare professionals. A scoping review was conducted following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and LILACS), gray literature (medRxiv), and reference lists of included studies were searched. Two independent reviewers performed study selection and data extraction. Descriptive synthesis, evidence mapping, and summary tables were utilized to summarize findings. Seventeen studies from 10 countries, including a total of 2,627 participants, were included. The proportion of clinicians performing fundus examinations ranged from 1.3% to 54%. Knowledge of the recommended timing of DR screening in patients with type 1 DM was low (2.3%-66%), but high for type 2 DM (53%-85.5%). Common barriers to DR screening included limited confidence in fundoscopic examination, insufficient training, lack of equipment, and concerns regarding the use of mydriatics. In conclusion, substantial KAP gaps were identified across professional groups and healthcare settings. Significant deficiencies in DR-related KAP among non-ophthalmologist physicians and optometrists may limit early detection and appropriate referral. These findings underscore the need for targeted educational interventions and system-level strategies to enhance DR screening capacity in primary care.
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.