Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34375355›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Diagnostic performance of deep-learning-based screening methods for diabetic retinopathy in primary care-A meta-analysis.

Larisa Wewetzer, Linda A Held, Jost Steinhäuser

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Implications of conscious AI in primary healthcare.Family medicine and community health · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Larisa WewetzerUniversity Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Institute for Family Medicine, Lubeck, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2847-3873
Linda A HeldUniversity Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Institute for Family Medicine, Lubeck, Germany.
Jost SteinhäuserUniversity Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Institute for Family Medicine, Lubeck, Germany.
University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDiabetic retinopathy (DR) affects 10-24% of patients with diabetes mellitus type 1 or 2 in the primary care (PC) sector. As early detection is crucial for treatment, deep learning screening methods in PC setting could potentially aid in an accurate and timely diagnosis. PURPOSE: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to determine the current state of knowledge regarding deep learning (DL) screening methods for DR in PC. DATA SOURCES: A systematic literature search was conducted using Medline, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify suitable studies. STUDY SELECTION: Suitable studies were selected by two researchers independently. Studies assessing DL methods and the suitability of these screening systems (diagnostic parameters such as sensitivity and specificity, information on datasets and setting) in PC were selected. Excluded were studies focusing on lesions, applying conventional diagnostic imaging tools, conducted in secondary or tertiary care, and all publication types other than original research studies on human subjects. DATA EXTRACTION: The following data was extracted from included studies: authors, title, year of publication, objectives, participants, setting, type of intervention/method, reference standard, grading scale, outcome measures, dataset, risk of bias, and performance measures. DATA SYNTHESIS AND

conclusionThe summed sensitivity of all included studies was 87% and specificity was 90%. Given a prevalence of DR of 10% in patients with DM Type 2 in PC, the negative predictive value is 98% while the positive predictive value is 49%. LIMITATIONS: Selected studies showed a high variation in sample size and quality and quantity of available data.

Indexed as

Deep LearningMass ScreeningPrimary Health CareDiabetic RetinopathyHumansOdds RatioPredictive Value of TestsPublication BiasROC Curve

Identifiers

PMID34375355
PMCPMC8354436
OpenAlexW3191286643

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.