Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35357410›Full record

SynthesisJAMA ophthalmology2022

Global Estimates of Diabetic Retinopathy Prevalence and Progression in Pregnant Women With Preexisting Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Felicia Widyaputri, Sophie L Rogers, Rathika Kandasamy, Alexis Shub, Robert C A Symons, Lyndell L Lim

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
7.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Felicia WidyaputriOphthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sophie L RogersCentre for Eye Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
Rathika KandasamyCentre for Eye Research Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
Alexis ShubDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Robert C A SymonsOphthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Lyndell L LimOphthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Centre for Eye Research Australia · AUMercy Hospital for Women · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) may be worsened by pregnancy in pregnant women with preexisting type 1 diabetes (T1D) or type 2 diabetes (T2D). Conflicting findings from previous studies have resulted in inconsistencies in guidelines regarding DR management in pregnancy. Global estimates of DR prevalence and progression in pregnancy are therefore required to provide clearer information about the overall true burden of DR in this population. Objective: To estimate the prevalence of DR and its progression rate in pregnant women with preexisting T1D or T2D diagnosed before pregnancy. Data Sources: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, conducted from November 27, 2018, to June 29, 2021, a systematic literature search was conducted in MEDLINE/Ovid, Embase/Ovid, and Scopus databases to identify English-language articles that were published from inception through October 2020. Study Selection: Observational studies that reported on DR and its changes in pregnant women with preexisting T1D and T2D. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two independent reviewers extracted relevant data from each included study. Data were pooled using a random-effects model with the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation. This study followed the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) reporting guidelines. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prevalence of any DR, proliferative DR (PDR), and DR progression rates. Results: A total of 18 observational studies involving 1464 pregnant women with T1D and 262 pregnant women with T2D were included in the analysis. The pooled prevalence of any DR and PDR in early pregnancy was 52.3 (95% CI, 41.9-62.6) and 6.1 (95% CI, 3.1-9.8) per 100 pregnancies, respectively. The pooled progression rate per 100 pregnancies for new DR development was 15.0 (95% CI, 9.9-20.8), worsened nonproliferative DR was 31.0 (95% CI, 23.2-39.2), progression from nonproliferative DR to PDR was 6.3 (95% CI, 3.3-10.0), and worsened PDR was 37.0 (95% CI, 21.2-54.0). DR progression rates per 100 pregnancies were similar between the T1D and T2D groups, except for the development of new DR (T1D groups: 15.8; 95% CI, 10.5-21.9; T2D groups: 9.0; 95% CI, 4.9-14.8). A global trend toward a lower DR progression rate was observed after the 1989 St Vincent Declaration. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that women with T1D and T2D had a similar risk of DR progression during pregnancy. Despite improvements in the management of diabetes and diabetes during pregnancy, DR prevalence and progression in pregnant women with diabetes remains higher than the nonpregnant population with diabetes, highlighting the need to improve DR management in pregnancy.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyFemaleHumansObservational Studies as TopicPregnancyPregnant PeoplePrevalence

Identifiers

PMID35357410
PMCPMC8972153
OpenAlexW4220931790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.