Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26830492›Full record

ReviewJournal of diabetes science and technology2016

The Evolution of Teleophthalmology Programs in the United Kingdom: Beyond Diabetic Retinopathy Screening.

Dawn A Sim, Danny Mitry, Philip Alexander, Adam Mapani, Srini Goverdhan, Tariq Aslam, Adnan Tufail, Catherine A Egan, Pearse A Keane

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of diabetes science and technology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

9 authors.

Dawn A SimNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Moorfields South, Croydon University Hospital, London, UK Moorfields South, St George's Hospital, London, UK University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK dawn.sim@moorfields.nhs.uk.
Danny MitryNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Philip AlexanderNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Adam MapaniNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Srini GoverdhanUniversity of Southampton, Southampton Eye Unit, Southampton, UK.
Tariq AslamManchester University, Manchester Royal Eye Hospital, Manchester, UK.
Adnan TufailNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Catherine A EganNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK Moorfields South, St George's Hospital, London, UK University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.
Pearse A KeaneNIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology, Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK University College London, Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health CS-2014-14-023
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modern ophthalmic practice in the United Kingdom is faced by the challenges of an aging population, increasing prevalence of systemic pathologies with ophthalmic manifestations, and emergent treatments that are revolutionary but dependent on timely monitoring and diagnosis. This represents a huge strain not only on diagnostic services but also outpatient management and surveillance capacity. There is an urgent need for newer means of managing this surge in demand and the socioeconomic burden it places on the health care system. Concurrently, there have been exponential increases in computing power, expansions in the strength and ubiquity of communications technologies, and developments in imaging capabilities. Advances in imaging have been not only in terms of resolution, but also in terms of anatomical coverage, allowing new inferences to be made. In spite of this, image analysis techniques are still currently superseded by expert ophthalmologist interpretation. Teleophthalmology is therefore currently perfectly placed to face this urgent and immediate challenge of provision of optimal and expert care to remote and multiple patients over widespread geographical areas. This article reviews teleophthalmology programs currently deployed in the United Kingdom, focusing on diabetic eye care but also discussing glaucoma, emergency eye care, and other retinal diseases. We examined current programs and levels of evidence for their utility, and explored the relationships between screening, teleophthalmology, disease detection, and monitoring before discussing aspects of health economics pertinent to diabetic eye care. The use of teleophthalmology presents an immense opportunity to manage the steadily increasing demand for eye care, but challenges remain in the delivery of practical, viable, and clinically proven solutions.

Indexed as

Diagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalDiabetic RetinopathyHumansMass ScreeningTelemedicineUnited Kingdomage-related macular degenerationdiabetesdiabetic retinopathyscreeningtelehealthtelemedicineteleophthalmology

Identifiers

PMID26830492
PMCPMC4773982

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.