Trial reportOphthalmology2013
Validity of self-report in type 1 diabetic subjects for laser treatment of retinopathy.
Trial report in Ophthalmology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integration of genomics and transcriptomics predicts diabetic retinopathy susceptibility genes.eLife · 2020Pooled it
- Intensive diabetes therapy and ocular surgery in type 1 diabetes.The New England journal of medicine · 2015Trial
- Serum uric acid predicts vascular complications in adults with type 1 diabetes: the coronary artery calcification in type 1 diabetes study.Acta diabetologica · 2014Trial
- The role of sirt1 in the retinal ganglion cells cultured by high glucose.International ophthalmology · 2021Article
- Lack of association of genetic variants for diabetic retinopathy in Taiwanese patients with diabetic nephropathy.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2020Article
- Inhibition of TLR4 alleviates the inflammation and apoptosis of retinal ganglion cells in high glucose.Graefe's archive for clinical and experimental ophthalmology = Albrecht von Graefes Archiv fur klinische und experimentelle Ophthalmologie · 2017Article
- Estimated insulin sensitivity predicts incident micro- and macrovascular complications in adults with type 1 diabetes over 6 years: the coronary artery calcification in type 1 diabetes study.Journal of diabetes and its complications · on this mapArticle
- ABC goal achievement predicts microvascular but not macrovascular complications over 6-years in adults with type 1 diabetes: the Coronary Artery Calcification in Type 1 Diabetes Study.Journal of diabetes and its complicationsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study sought to determine the validity of self-report of prior panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) and focal photocoagulation (FP) compared with fundus photography.
designProspective cohort study.
participantsOne thousand three hundred sixty-three type 1 diabetic subjects from the Epidemiology of Diabetes Interventions and Complications (EDIC) study, a subset of the 1441 subjects originally enrolled in the multicenter Diabetes Control and Complications Trial.
methodsAt each annual visit, subjects were asked by EDIC staff whether they had undergone PRP, FP, or both since the last completed annual clinic visit. Fundus photographs were collected from one quarter of the cohort each year and from the entire cohort at EDIC years 4 and 10. Photographs were graded for the presence and extent of PRP and FP. Seventeen years of subject reporting and photograph grading of PRP and FP were compared in EDIC subjects.
main outcome measuresThe κ, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for subject-reported PRP and FP. Factors influencing subject misreporting were investigated.
resultsFor subject reporting, 1244 (96%) of 1296 subjects with gradable photographs accurately reported whether they had a history of PRP in one or both eyes, and 1259 (97.5%) of 1291 with valid photographs correctly reported their history of FP. For PRP and FP, sensitivities were 90.4% and 74.0%, respectively; specificities were 96.0% and 98.8%, respectively; positive predictive values were 75.9% and 80.3%, respectively; negative predictive values were 98.9% and 98.4%, respectively; and κ values were 0.80 and 0.76, respectively. Risk factors associated with misreporting included prior laser for diabetic retinopathy and prior ocular surgery (each P<0.04).
conclusionsFor subjects with type 1 diabetes, in the absence of a clinical examination or fundus photographs, subject self-report could be a reliable tool in a well-monitored study for assessing laser treatment type in diabetic retinopathy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.