ArticleJournal of vitreoretinal diseases
Incidence of Referable Retinal Disease in Diabetic Patients at a Primary Care Practice.
Article in Journal of vitreoretinal diseases. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Digital eyes on diabetes: a systematic review of attitudes toward telemedicine-based retinopathy screening.Oxford open digital health · 2026Article
- Ocular biomarkers: useful incidental findings by deep learning algorithms in fundus photographs.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This work tests the feasibility of remote ophthalmic imaging to identify referable retinal abnormalities and assesses the effectiveness of color fundus photography (CFP) vs optical coherence tomography (OCT) for this purpose. Methods: This prospective, nonrandomized study included 633 patients with diabetes at Duke Primary Care. Undilated patients underwent screening with CFP and OCT camera (MaestroCare, Topcon). Images were graded independently for interpretability and the presence of predetermined retinal disease. Retinal disease was classified as diabetic retinopathy (DR) referable to a retina specialist or incidental findings referable to either a retina specialist or a general ophthalmologist, depending on severity. Results: Mean (SD) age of screened patients was 66 (13) years, and 49% were women. The average glycated hemoglobin A Conclusions: Remote diagnosis of ophthalmic imaging at the point of service may allow for early identification of retinal disease and timely referral and treatment. Our approach showed that OCT had significantly better interpretability, while CFP was more helpful in identifying DR. These findings may be important when choosing the screening device in a specific context.
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.