Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24763851›Full record

ArticleDiabetologia2014

Validation of a model to estimate personalised screening frequency to monitor diabetic retinopathy.

Amber A W A van der Heijden, Iris Walraven, Esther van 't Riet, Thor Aspelund, Sigrún H Lund, Petra Elders, Bettine C P Polak, Annette C Moll, Jan E E Keunen, Jacqueline M Dekker and 1 more

Abstract readValidation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Diabetologia, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Retinopathy prevalence, incidence and trajectories in type 2 diabetes: The Fremantle diabetes study phase II.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2023
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The unmet need for better risk stratification of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy.Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2019
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Amber A W A van der HeijdenEMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, VU University Medical Center, van der Boechorststraat 7, 1081 BT, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, a.vanderheijden@vumc.nl.
Iris Walraven
Esther van 't Riet
Thor Aspelund
Sigrún H Lund
Petra Elders
Bettine C P Polak
Annette C Moll
Jan E E Keunen
Jacqueline M Dekker
Giel Nijpels
EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research · NLAmsterdam UMC Location VUmc · NLUniversity of Iceland · ISRadboud University Nijmegen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aims/hypothesisOur study aimed to validate a model to determine a personalised screening frequency for diabetic retinopathy.

methodsA model calculating a personalised screening interval for monitoring retinopathy based on patients' risk profile was validated using the data of 3,319 type 2 diabetic patients in the Diabetes Care System West-Friesland, the Netherlands. Two-field fundus photographs were graded according to the EURODIAB coding system. Sight-threatening retinopathy (STR) was considered to be grades 3-5. Validity of the model was assessed using calibration and discrimination measures. We compared model-based time of screening with time of STR diagnosis and calculated the differences in the number of fundus photographs using the model compared with those in annual or biennial screening.

resultsDuring a mean of 53 months of follow-up, 76 patients (2.3%) developed STR. Using the model, the mean screening interval was 31 months, leading to a reduced screening frequency of 61% compared with annual screening and 23% compared with biennial screening. STR incidence occurred after a mean of 26 months after the model-based time of screening in 67 patients (88.2%). In nine patients (11.8%), STR had developed before the model-based time of screening. The discriminatory ability of the model was good (C-statistic 0.83; 95% CI 0.74, 0.92). Calibration showed that the model overestimated STR risk. CONCLUSIONS/

interpretationA large reduction in retinopathy screening was achieved using the model in this population of patients with a very low incidence of retinopathy. Considering the number of potentially missed cases of STR, there is room for improvement in the model. Use of the model for personalised screening may eventually help to reduce healthcare use and costs of diabetes care.

Indexed as

Models, TheoreticalAgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNetherlandsRisk FactorsSeverity of Illness IndexTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID24763851
OpenAlexW2057907723

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.