ArticlePloS one2022
Outreach screening to address demographic and economic barriers to diabetic retinopathy care in rural China.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Eye care interventions that reduce access inequities for women, rural residents and older people in low-middle-income countries: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importancePoor access to existing care for diabetic retinopathy (DR) limits effectiveness of proven treatments.
objectivesWe examined whether outreach screening in rural China improves equity of access. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsWe compared prevalence of female sex, age > = 65 years, primary education or below, and requiring referral care for DR between three cohorts with diabetes examined for DR in neighboring areas of Guangdong, China: passive case detection at secondary-level hospitals (n = 193); persons screened during primary-level DR outreach (n = 182); and individuals with newly- or previously-diagnosed diabetes in a population survey (n = 579). The latter reflected the "ideal" reach of a screening program.
resultsCompared to the population cohort, passive case detection reached fewer women (50·8% vs. 62·3%, p = 0·006), older adults (37·8% vs. 51·3%, p < 0·001), and less-educated persons (39·9% vs. 89·6%, p < 0·001). Outreach screening, compared to passive case detection, improved representation of the elderly (49·5% vs. 37·8%, p = 0·03) and less-educated (70·3% vs. 39·9%, p<0·001). The proportion of women (59.8% vs 62.3%, P>0.300) and persons aged > = 65 years (49.5% vs 51.3%, p = 0.723) in the outreach screening and population cohorts did not differ significantly. Prevalence of requiring referral care for DR was significantly higher in the outreach screening cohort (28·0%) than the population (14·0%) and passive case detection cohorts (7·3%, p<0·001 for both). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Primary-level outreach screening improves access for the poorly-educated and elderly, and removes gender inequity in access to DR care in this setting, while also identifying more severely-affected patients than case finding in hospital.
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.