ArticleActa clinica Croatica2020
SCREENING FOR DIABETIC RETINOPATHY - A TWELVE-MONTH REVIEW.
Article in Acta clinica Croatica, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Present and future screening programs for diabetic retinopathy: a narrative review.International journal of retina and vitreous · 2024Review
- SUBCLINICAL HYPOTHYROIDISM AS A CONTRIBUTOR TO MACROVASCULAR COMPLICATIONS IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS.Acta clinica Croatica · 2022Article
- Eight years' experience in mobile teleophthalmology for diabetic retinopathy screening.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose is to provide a twelve-month database review of screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR). A total of 1428 diabetes mellitus (DM) patients screened in 2017 were analyzed in a retrospective study. Retinal photographs were reviewed by an ophthalmologist for the presence and stage of DR, as well as for additional nondiabetic findings. The following grading categories of DR were used: without DR, mild non-proliferative DR (NPDR), moderate NPDR, severe non-proliferative NPDR, proliferative DR (PDR), clinically significant macular edema (CSME) and ungradable finding. Severe NPDR, PDR and CSME were classified as vision-threatening DR. Out of 1428 DM patients, 27 were diagnosed with type 1 DM and 1401 with type 2 DM, 353 of them had newly diagnosed type 2 DM. Without DR category was recorded in 85.2% of all eyes screened, 2.8% were ungradable, and 12% showed varying stages of DR. Vision-threatening DR was found in 2.8% and additional nondiabetic findings in 5.2% of all screened eyes. In the group of newly diagnosed type 2 DM, 92.5% of screened eyes were without DR, 3.1% were ungradable and 4.3% showed varying stages of DR. In the group of newly diagnosed type 2 DM, vision-threatening DR was recorded in 0.1% and additional nondiabetic finding in 5.7% of the eyes screened. In conclusion, a small proportion of screened DM patients with detected DR had vision-threatening DR.
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.