ArticleBMJ open2021
Two-field non-mydriatic fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy screening: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Value of Combining Optical Coherence Tomography with Fundus Photography in Screening Retinopathy in Patients with High Myopia.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Article
- Prevalence Rates of Diabetic Retinopathy and Undiagnosed Diabetes Among Delaware Nursing Home and Assisted Living Facility Residents.Gerontology & geriatric medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the most prevalent microvascular complications of diabetes mellitus. Guidelines for DR screening in different countries vary greatly, including fundus photography, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, indirect ophthalmoscopy, Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), OCT-A and Fundus Fluorescein Angiography (FFA). Two-field non-mydriatic fundus photography (NMFP) is an effective screening method due to its low cost and less time-consuming process. However, it is controversial due to the sensitivity and specificity of two-field NMFP. This review intends to evaluate the performance of the two-field NMFP in diagnosing DR and helps clinicians determine the most optimal screening method. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers will independently search on the Medline, Embase, Cochrane databases, ProQuest, Opengrey, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data, VIP China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, ISRCTN, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP to identify relevant studies. There is no restriction posed on the language of the study. Included studies focus on the performance of two-field NMFP in detecting DR in diabetes patients. Analysis and evaluation of the studies will be examined by two reviewers independently using the Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool and later evaluated using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, Study design criteria. A random-effect model will calculate the diagnostic indicators, including the sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic OR, area under the curve and 95% CIs. We will also develop a summary receiver operating characteristic curve. We anticipate analysing subgroups according to the factors, which may lead to heterogeneity, including DR levels of patients, the reference standards, camera models, the interpretation criteria. The data will be analysed by STATA software. This study was registered with PROSPERO. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review will analyse the published data. Patients/the public were not involved in this research. The results of this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020203608.
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.