Observational studyBMJ open2019
Profile of a population-based diabetic macular oedema study: the Liverpool Eye and Diabetes Study (Sydney).
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pharmacological Effects of Saffron and its Constituents in Ocular Disorders from in vitro Studies to Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.Current neuropharmacology · 2021Pooled it
- Wide-Field Optical Coherence Tomography in Patients with Diabetic Macular Edema.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Statement of the German Ophthalmological Society, the German Retina Society, and the Professional Association of Ophthalmologists in Germany on treatment of diabetic macular edema : Dated August 2019.Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2021Review
- [Statement of the German Ophthalmological Society, the Retinological Society and the Professional Association of Ophthalmologists in Germany on treatment of diabetic macular edema : Situation August 2019].Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft · 2020Review
- Development and Validation of a Deep Learning System for the Provision of a District-Wide Diabetes Retinal Screening Service.Clinical & experimental ophthalmologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe population prevalence of diabetic macular oedema (DME) is unclear. Previous estimates have depended on photographic grading of clinically significant macular oedema, which is subjective and has resulted in widely varying estimates. With the advent of optical coherence tomography (OCT), the presence and severity of DME can now be assessed objectively and accurately.
methodsThe Liverpool Eye and Diabetes Study (LEADS) is a cross-sectional population-based study of patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in a multi-ethnic region of Sydney, Australia, to determine the population prevalence of OCT-defined DME, how this varies by ethnicity and association with systemic factors. This report describes the rationale, methodology and study aims.
resultsTo date 646 patients out of an expected sample size of 2000 have been recruited. Baseline data are presented for patients with type 1 (n=75, 11.8%) and type 2 (n=562, 88.2%) diabetes recruited to date. Patients with type 1 diabetes were younger (39.5vs60.7 years), with longer duration of diabetes (18.1vs11.7 years), slightly worse glycaemic control (HbA1c 9.0vs8.3), and less likely to have hypertension (30.7vs71.4%), hypercholesterolaemia (33.3vs74.6%) and obesity (31.1vs51.5%, respectively, all p<0.05).
conclusionsThe LEADS will provide objective estimates of the population prevalence of DME, how this varies with ethnicity and associations with systemic disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.