ArticleDiabetology & metabolic syndrome2026
Prognostic value of advanced imaging biomarkers for the progression of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review.
Article in Diabetology & metabolic syndrome, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn recent years, diabetes mellitus (DM) has emerged as a chronic disease with a steadily increasing prevalence. It is closely associated with lifestyle and metabolic factors, including poor lifestyle habits that contribute to systemic metabolic alterations. Among its vascular complications, diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the most serious, with a high incidence rate and recognized as the leading cause of preventable blindness in working-age adults. One of the major challenges associated with DR is predicting disease progression. The transition from non-proliferative DR to proliferative DR is highly heterogeneous among individuals. This variability poses a substantial dilemma in clinical practice, as it hinders the routine identification of high-risk patients who require periodic monitoring and early intervention.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251082364). This study included only longitudinal, prospective, and retrospective cohort studies published in any language. Eligible studies were required to report baseline markers of retinal neurodegeneration and DR status at the follow-up visit. A scientific literature search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, with no restrictions on publication dates. Additionally, a gray literature search was conducted in databases such as Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ARVO (The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology).
resultsA total of 6,656 articles were retrieved from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. After removing duplicates, 5,911 remained for title and abstract analyses. Of these, 33 studies were selected for full reading, of which 20 were excluded because they failed to meet the inclusion criteria, leaving 13 studies for systematic review. The certainty of evidence for the main identified predictors was rated as low for m-GCIPL thinning and very low for CC FD%, according to the GRADE approach.
conclusionsThis systematic review demonstrates that advanced imaging biomarkers obtained using OCT and OCTA have shown consistent associations with DR progression. Markers quantifying vascular perfusion failure, such as CC FD% and neural structural damage, particularly m-GCIPL thinning, were identified as the most consistently reported and promising predictors of disease progression. While promising, these biomarkers currently present low to very low certainty of evidence, necessitating cautious clinical interpretation.
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.