ArticleBMJ open2023
Impact of a short online course on the accuracy of non-ophthalmic diabetic retinopathy graders in recognising glaucomatous optic nerves in Vietnam.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 5 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo test an online training course for non-ophthalmic diabetic retinopathy (DR) graders for recognition of glaucomatous optic nerves in Vietnam.
methodsThis was an uncontrolled, experimental, before-and-after study in which 43 non-ophthalmic DR graders underwent baseline testing on a standard image set, completed a self-paced, online training course and were retested using the same photographs presented randomly. Twenty-nine local ophthalmologists completed the same test without the training course. DR graders then underwent additional one-to-one training by a glaucoma specialist and were retested. Test performance (% correct, compared with consensus grades from four fellowship-trained glaucoma experts), sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and area under the receiver operating (AUC) curve, were computed.
resultsMean age of DR graders (32.6±5.5 years) did not differ from ophthalmologists (32.3±7.3 years, p=0.13). Online training required a mean of 297.9 (SD 144.6) minutes. Graders' mean baseline score (33.3%±14.3%) improved significantly after training (55.8%±12.6%, p<0.001), and post-training score did not differ from ophthalmologists (58.7±15.4%, p=0.384). Although grader sensitivity reduced before [85.5% (95% CI 83.5% to 87.3%)] versus after [80.4% (78.3% to 82.4%)] training, specificity improved significantly [47.8 (44.9 to 50.7) vs 79.8 (77.3 to 82.0), p<0.001]. Grader AUC also improved after training [66.6 (64.9 to 68.3)] to [80.1 (78.5 to 81.6), p<0.001]. Additional one-to-one grader training by a glaucoma specialist did not further improve grader scores.
conclusionNon-ophthalmic DR graders can be trained to recognise glaucoma using a short online course in this setting, with no additional benefit from more expensive one-to-one training. After 5-hour online training in recognising glaucomatous optic nerve head, scores of non-ophthalmic DR graders doubled, and did not differ from local ophthalmologists. Intensive one-to-one training did not further improve performance.
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.