Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25479593›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2014

The effectiveness of teleglaucoma versus in-patient examination for glaucoma screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Sera-Melisa Thomas, Maya M Jeyaraman, Maya Jeyaraman, William G Hodge, Cindy Hutnik, John Costella, Monali S Malvankar-Mehta

Erratum issuedOpen access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 56 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
56citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

56 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 133 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Knowledge Update on the Economic Evaluation of Pacemaker Telemonitoring Systems.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Teleophthalmology Using Remote Retinal Imaging During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association · 2023
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sera-Melisa ThomasDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
Maya M Jeyaraman
Maya JeyaramanDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada.
William G HodgeDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada; Department of Ophthalmology, Ivey Eye Institute, St. Joseph's Health Care London, London, Canada.
Cindy HutnikDepartment of Ophthalmology, Ivey Eye Institute, St. Joseph's Health Care London, London, Canada.
John CostellaAllyn and Betty Taylor Library, Western University, London, Canada.
Monali S Malvankar-MehtaDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, Western University, London, Canada; Department of Ophthalmology, Ivey Eye Institute, St. Joseph's Health Care London, London, Canada.
Western University · CASt Joseph's Health Care · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlaucoma is the leading cause of irreversible visual impairment in the world affecting 60.5 million people worldwide in 2010, which is expected to increase to approximately 79.6 million by 2020. Therefore, glaucoma screening is important to detect, diagnose, and treat patients at the earlier stages to prevent disease progression and vision loss. Teleglaucoma uses stereoscopic digital imaging to take ocular images, which are transmitted electronically to an ocular specialist. The purpose is to synthesize literature to evaluate teleglaucoma, its diagnostic accuracy, healthcare system benefits, and cost-effectiveness.

methodsA systematic search was conducted to help locate published and unpublished studies. Studies which evaluate teleglaucoma as a screening device for glaucoma were included. A meta-analysis was conducted to provide estimates of diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic odds ratio, and the relative percentage of glaucoma cases detected. The improvements to healthcare service quality and cost data were assessed.

resultsOf 11237 studies reviewed, 45 were included. Our results indicated that, teleglaucoma is more specific and less sensitive than in-person examination. The pooled estimates of sensitivity was 0.832 [95% CI 0.770, 0.881] and specificity was 0.790 [95% CI 0.668, 0.876]. The relative odds of a positive screen test in glaucoma cases are 18.7 times more likely than a negative screen test in a non-glaucoma cases. Additionally, the mean cost for every case of glaucoma detected was $1098.67 US and of teleglaucoma per patient screened was $922.77 US.

conclusionTeleglaucoma can accurately discriminate between screen test results with greater odds for positive cases. It detects more cases of glaucoma than in-person examination. Both patients and the healthcare systems benefit from early detection, reduction in wait and travel times, increased specialist referral rates, and cost savings. Teleglaucoma is an effective screening tool for glaucoma specifically for remote and under-services communities.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalTelemedicineCost-Benefit AnalysisGlaucomaHumansMass ScreeningPhysical Examination

Identifiers

PMID25479593
PMCPMC4257598
OpenAlexW1993076316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.