Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37852739›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of ophthalmology2024

Evaluating the outcome of screening for glaucoma using colour fundus photography-based referral criteria in a teleophthalmology screening programme for diabetic retinopathy.

Rose Tan, Kelvin Yi Chong Teo, Rahat Husain, Ngiap Chuan Tan, Qian Xin Lee, Haslina Hamzah, Tina Wong, Tin Aung, Ching Yu Cheng, Ecosse Luc Lamoureux and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of ophthalmology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. BRSET: A Brazilian Multilabel Ophthalmological Dataset of Retina Fundus Photos.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

14 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Rose TanSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7351-2774
Kelvin Yi Chong TeoSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0002-7458-7081
Rahat HusainSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Ngiap Chuan TanOutram Polyclinic, SingHealth Polyclinics, Singapore.
Qian Xin LeeSNEC Ocular Reading Centre, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Haslina HamzahSNEC Ocular Reading Centre, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Tina WongSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Tin AungSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Ching Yu ChengSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Ecosse Luc LamoureuxSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore.
Colin S TanDuke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Academic Clinical Program, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-3088-5690
Hon-Tym WongOphthalmology, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, National Healthcare Group Eye Institute, Singapore.
Tien Y WongDuke-NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences Academic Clinical Program, Singapore.
Gavin Siew Wei TanSingapore Eye Research Institute, Singapore National Eye Centre, Singapore gavin.tan@singhealth.com.sg.ORCID 0000-0001-5383-7136
National University of Singapore · SGSingapore National Eye Center · SGSingHealth Polyclinics · SGTan Tock Seng Hospital · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo evaluate the effectiveness of glaucoma screening using glaucoma suspect (GS) referral criteria assessed on colour fundus photographs in Singapore's Integrated Diabetic Retinopathy Programme (SiDRP).

methodsA case-control study. This study included diabetic subjects who were referred from SiDRP with and without GS between January 2017 and December 2018 and reviewed at Singapore National Eye Centre. The GS referral criteria were based on the presence of a vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) of ≥0.65 and other GS features. The final glaucoma diagnosis confirmed from electronic medical records was retrospectively matched with GS status. The sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) of the test were evaluated.

resultsOf 5023 patients (2625 with GS and 2398 without GS) reviewed for glaucoma, 451 (9.0%, 95% CI 8.2% to 9.8%) were confirmed as glaucoma. The average follow-up time was 21.5±10.2 months. Using our current GS referral criteria, the sensitivity, specificity and PPV were 81.6% (95% CI 77.7% to 85.1%), 50.6% (95% CI 49.2% to 52.1%) and 14.0% (95% CI 13.4% to 14.7%), respectively, resulting in 2257 false positive cases. Increasing the VCDR cut-off for referral to ≥0.80, the specificity increased to 93.9% (95% CI 93.1% to 94.5%) but the sensitivity decreased to 11.3% (95% CI 8.5% to 14.6%), with a PPV of 15.4% (95% CI 12.0% to 19.4%).

conclusionsOpportunistic screening for glaucoma in a lower VCDR group could result in a high number of unnecessary referrals. If healthcare infrastructures are limited, targeting case findings on a larger VCDR group with high specificity will still be beneficial.

Indexed as

Diabetic RetinopathyGlaucomaPhotographyReferral and ConsultationAgedCase-Control StudiesFemaleFundus OculiHumansIntraocular PressureMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPredictive Value of TestsRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityDiagnostic tests/InvestigationGlaucomaPublic healthTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID37852739
PMCPMC11228193
OpenAlexW4387745077

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.