Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35511139›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2022

Multicenter Evaluation of Diagnostic Circulating Biomarkers to Detect Sight-Threatening Diabetic Retinopathy.

Sarega Gurudas, Karen Frudd, Jayapal Jeya Maheshwari, Yeddula Rebecca Revathy, Sobha Sivaprasad, Shruthi Mahalakshmi Ramanathan, Vignesh Pooleeswaran, A Toby Prevost, Eleni Karatsai, Sandra Halim and 12 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Diabetic retinal disease.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  5. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025
    Article
  6. Diabetic Retinopathy-A Review.Current diabetes reviews · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

22 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.

Sarega GurudasInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Karen FruddInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Jayapal Jeya MaheshwariAravind Medical Research Foundation, Proteomics Department, No.1 Anna Nagar, Madurai, India.
Yeddula Rebecca RevathyVision Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Sobha SivaprasadInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Shruthi Mahalakshmi RamanathanAravind Medical Research Foundation, Proteomics Department, No.1 Anna Nagar, Madurai, India.
Vignesh PooleeswaranAravind Medical Research Foundation, Proteomics Department, No.1 Anna Nagar, Madurai, India.
A Toby PrevostNightingale-Saunders Clinical Trials and Epidemiology Unit, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
Eleni KaratsaiNational Institute of Health Research Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital London NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Sandra HalimInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Shruti ChandraInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Paul NderituOphthalmology Department, King's College University Hospital Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Dolores ConroyInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Subramanian KrishnakumarVision Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Sowmya ParameswaranVision Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Kuppamuthu DharmalingamAravind Medical Research Foundation, Proteomics Department, No.1 Anna Nagar, Madurai, India.
Kim RamasamyAravind Eye Hospital, Madurai, India.
Rajiv RamanVision Research Foundation, Chennai, India.
Colin JonesNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Trust, Norwich, United Kingdom.
Haralabos EleftheriadisOphthalmology Department, King's College University Hospital Trust, London, United Kingdom.
John GreenwoodInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Patric TurowskiInstitute of Ophthalmology, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
University College London · GBOil and Natural Gas Corporation (India) · INMoorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust · GBAravind Eye Hospital · INKing's College Hospital · GBKing's College London · GBKing's College - North Carolina · USNorfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/P027881/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: It is a global challenge to provide regular retinal screening for all people with diabetes to detect sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR). Objective: To determine if circulating biomarkers could be used to prioritize people with type 2 diabetes for retinal screening to detect STDR. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study collected data from October 22, 2018, to December 31, 2021. All laboratory staff were masked to the clinical diagnosis, assigned a study cohort, and provided with the database containing the clinical data. This was a multicenter study conducted in parallel in 3 outpatient ophthalmology clinics in the UK and 2 centers in India. Adults 40 years and older were categorized into 4 groups: (1) no history of diabetes, (2) type 2 diabetes of at least 5 years' duration with no evidence of DR, (3) nonproliferative DR with diabetic macular edema (DME), or (4) proliferative DR. STDR comprised groups 3 and 4. Exposures: Thirteen previously verified biomarkers were measured using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Main Outcomes and Measures: Severity of DR and presence of DME were diagnosed using fundus photographs and optical coherence tomography. Weighted logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (ROC) were performed to identify biomarkers that discriminate STDR from no DR beyond the standard clinical parameters of age, disease duration, ethnicity (in the UK) and hemoglobin A1c. Results: A total of 538 participants (mean [SD] age, 60.8 [9.8] years; 319 men [59.3%]) were recruited into the study. A total of 264 participants (49.1%) were from India (group 1, 54 [20.5%]; group 2, 53 [20.1%]; group 3, 52 [19.7%]; group 4, 105 [39.8%]), and 274 participants (50.9%) were from the UK (group 1, 50 [18.2%]; group 2, 70 [25.5%]; group 3, 55 [20.1%]; group 4, 99 [36.1%]). ROC analysis (no DR vs STDR) showed that in addition to age, disease duration, ethnicity (in the UK) and hemoglobin A1c, inclusion of cystatin C had near-acceptable discrimination power in both countries (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC], 0.779; 95% CI, 0.700-0.857 in 215 patients in the UK with complete data; AUC, 0.696; 95% CI, 0.602-0.791 in 208 patients in India with complete data). Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this cross-sectional study suggest that serum cystatin C had good discrimination power in the UK and India. Circulating cystatin-C levels may be considered as a test to identify those who require prioritization for retinal screening for STDR.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Diabetic RetinopathyMacular EdemaAdultCross-Sectional StudiesCystatin CFemaleGlycated HemoglobinHumansMaleMiddle AgedCystatin CGlycated Hemoglobin

Identifiers

PMID35511139
PMCPMC9073659
OpenAlexW4229002462

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.