SynthesisPloS one2021
Diagnostic performance of deep-learning-based screening methods for diabetic retinopathy in primary care-A meta-analysis.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Describing the Performance and the Infrastructure Requirements of the Existing Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Based Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) Screening Algorithms for Diabetic Patients: an Umbrella Review.Journal of medical systems · 2025Pooled it
- Performance of artificial intelligence in diabetic retinopathy screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Pooled it
- Emerging innovations in ophthalmic drug delivery for diabetic retinopathy: a translational perspective.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Review
- Diagnostic Accuracy and Real-Life Advantages of the MONA.health Artificial Intelligence Software in Screening for Diabetic Retinopathy and Maculopathy.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of AI and Ophthalmologist Grading in Diabetic Retinopathy Detection.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Diabetic retinopathy screening using machine learning: a systematic review.BMC biomedical engineering · 2025Article
- Diagnostic utility of artificial intelligence software through non-mydriatic digital retinography in the screening of diabetic retinopathy: an overview of reviews.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Implications of conscious AI in primary healthcare.Family medicine and community health · 2024Review
- Real-world evaluation of smartphone-based artificial intelligence to screen for diabetic retinopathy in Dominica: a clinical validation study.BMJ open ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Identifying Existing Evidence to Potentially Develop a Machine Learning Diagnostic Algorithm for Cough in Primary Care Settings: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence Software for Diabetic Eye Screening: Diagnostic Performance and Impact of Stratification.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.