Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29621309›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Diabetic retinopathy screening in incident diabetes mellitus type 2 in Germany between 2004 and 2013 - A prospective cohort study based on health claims data.

Daniel Kreft, Myra B McGuinness, Gabriele Doblhammer, Robert P Finger

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.2field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. [Development and Internal Validation of Case Definitions for Prevalence Estimation of Microvascular Complications of Diabetes in Routine Data].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2024
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Interdisciplinary communication: ophthalmologists' letters to practices specializing in diabetic patients].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021
    Article
  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

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Daniel KreftRostock Center for the Study of Demographic Change, Rostock, Germany.
Myra B McGuinnessCentre for Eye Research Australia, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, East Melbourne, Australia.
Gabriele DoblhammerRostock Center for the Study of Demographic Change, Rostock, Germany.
Robert P FingerOphthalmic Epidemiology, Department of Ophthalmology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Rostocker Zentrum zur Erforschung des Demografischen Wandels · DECentre for Eye Research Australia · AUUniversity of Bonn · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess factors associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening uptake following a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (type 2 diabetes) in Germany. MATERIALS AND

methodsA nationally representative prospective sample of individual-level health claims data for 250,000 members from Germany's largest public insurance provider in 2004-2013 was assessed. In the sample, 26,560 persons with incident type 2 diabetes were identified. Factors associated with subsequent DR screening were assessed using descriptive statistics, Kaplan-Meier estimator, and Cox regression analysis.

resultsOn average 27.6 visits to an ophthalmologist per 100 person-years in persons with incident type 2 diabetes occurred. Half of all incident cases (Kaplan-Meier estimator) had not seen an ophthalmologist after more than two years (2.25 years) following their diabetes diagnosis. In the multivariate analysis, an older age (from hazard ratio HR(70-74) = 0.93 [95%-CI: 0.89-0.97] to HR(90+) = 0.50 [95%-CI: 0.42-0.60] compared to persons aged 50-69 years) and a higher disability level (i.e. HR(disability level 3) = 0.30 [95%-CI: 0.25-0.36]) were associated with a lower likelihood, while female sex (HR = 1.12 [95%-CI: 1.08-1.15]), six or more comorbidities (HR = 1.26 [95%-CI: 1.15-1.37]), moderate (HR = 1.51 [95%-CI: 1.46-1.56]) or severe type 2 diabetes (HR = 1.53 [95%-CI: 1.45-1.61]) as well as being enrolled in a type 2 diabetes disease management program (HR = 1.78 [95%-CI: 1.69-1.87]) were associated with a higher likelihood of DR screening.

conclusionsA high proportion of newly diagnosed persons with type 2 diabetes did not follow current German recommendations for DR screening, impeding timely detection and management of potential complications. This was more apparent among persons who were men, older or had a disability. The uptake of screening was considerably greater among those enrolled in a diseases management program. These factors need to be considered when planning DR screening services and/or referrals.

Indexed as

Patient ComplianceAgedComorbidityDiabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNational Health ProgramsProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID29621309
PMCPMC5886553
OpenAlexW2796214434

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.