Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29178249›Full record

ArticleActa ophthalmologica2018

Validation of automated screening for referable diabetic retinopathy with the IDx-DR device in the Hoorn Diabetes Care System.

Amber A van der Heijden, Michael D Abramoff, Frank Verbraak, Manon V van Hecke, Albert Liem, Giel Nijpels

Open access · hybridAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta ophthalmologica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 136 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
136citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

136 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 290 citations in OpenAlex.

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

76 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Amber A van der HeijdenDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6383-3187
Michael D AbramoffDepartment of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Iowa Hospital and Clinics, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Frank VerbraakDepartment of Ophthalmology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Manon V van HeckeDepartment of Ophthalmology, Elisabeth-Tweestedenziekenhuis, Tilburg, the Netherlands.
Albert LiemDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Giel NijpelsDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Amsterdam Public Health · NLAmsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLElisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis · NLUniversity Medical Center Utrecht · NLUniversity of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo increase the efficiency of retinal image grading, algorithms for automated grading have been developed, such as the IDx-DR 2.0 device. We aimed to determine the ability of this device, incorporated in clinical work flow, to detect retinopathy in persons with type 2 diabetes.

methodsRetinal images of persons treated by the Hoorn Diabetes Care System (DCS) were graded by the IDx-DR device and independently by three retinal specialists using the International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy severity scale (ICDR) and EURODIAB criteria. Agreement between specialists was calculated. Results of the IDx-DR device and experts were compared using sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), distinguishing between referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) and vision-threatening retinopathy (VTDR). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated.

resultsOf the included 1415 persons, 898 (63.5%) had images of sufficient quality according to the experts and the IDx-DR device. Referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) was diagnosed in 22 persons (2.4%) using EURODIAB and 73 persons (8.1%) using ICDR classification. Specific intergrader agreement ranged from 40% to 61%. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of IDx-DR to detect RDR were 91% (95% CI: 0.69-0.98), 84% (95% CI: 0.81-0.86), 12% (95% CI: 0.08-0.18) and 100% (95% CI: 0.99-1.00; EURODIAB) and 68% (95% CI: 0.56-0.79), 86% (95% CI: 0.84-0.88), 30% (95% CI: 0.24-0.38) and 97% (95% CI: 0.95-0.98; ICDR). The AUC was 0.94 (95% CI: 0.88-1.00; EURODIAB) and 0.87 (95% CI: 0.83-0.92; ICDR). For detection of VTDR, sensitivity was lower and specificity was higher compared to RDR. AUC's were comparable.

conclusionAutomated grading using the IDx-DR device for RDR detection is a valid method and can be used in primary care, decreasing the demand on ophthalmologists.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedAgedDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyDiagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalEquipment DesignFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningNetherlandsROC Curveautomated gradingdiabetic retinopathytype 2 diabetesvalidation

Identifiers

PMID29178249
PMCPMC5814834
OpenAlexW2768095311

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.