Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34177051›Full record

ArticleActa clinica Croatica2020

SCREENING FOR DIABETIC RETINOPATHY - A TWELVE-MONTH REVIEW.

Tomaž Gračner

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Eight years' experience in mobile teleophthalmology for diabetic retinopathy screening.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2022
    Article
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tomaž Gračner1Maribor University Clinical Centre, Department of Ophthalmology, Maribor, Slovenia; 2University of Maribor, Faculty of Medicine, Maribor, Slovenia.
University of Maribor · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyMacular EdemaHumansRetrospective StudiesDiabetes mellitusDiabetic retinopathyMaculopathyProliferative retinopathyScreening

Identifiers

PMID34177051
PMCPMC8212655
OpenAlexW3137218608

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.