ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024
Cost-effectiveness of incorporating self-imaging optical coherence tomography into fundus photography-based diabetic retinopathy screening.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning-based prediction of diabetic retinopathy using clinlabomics: a multi-center study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Prevalence of macular disorders assessed by OCT in adults 45 years and older from Parintins - the Brazilian Amazon Region Eye Survey (BARES).International journal of retina and vitreous · 2026Article
- Expanding Access to Retinal Imaging Through Patient-Operated Optical Coherence Tomography in a Veterans Affairs Retina Clinic.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A dual attention and multi-scale fusion network for diabetic retinopathy image analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- A panoramic perspective: application prospects and outlook of multimodal artificial intelligence in the management of diabetic retinopathy.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Diabetic macular edema (DME) has emerged as the foremost cause of vision loss in the population with diabetes. Early detection of DME is paramount, yet the prevailing screening, relying on two-dimensional and labor-intensive fundus photography (FP), results in frequent unwarranted referrals and overlooked diagnoses. Self-imaging optical coherence tomography (SI-OCT), offering fully automated, three-dimensional macular imaging, holds the potential to enhance DR screening. We conducted an observational study within a cohort of 1822 participants with diabetes, who received comprehensive assessments, including visual acuity testing, FP, and SI-OCT examinations. We compared the performance of three screening strategies: the conventional FP-based strategy, a combination strategy of FP and SI-OCT, and a simulated combination strategy of FP and manual SD-OCT. Additionally, we undertook a cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing Markov models to evaluate the costs and benefits of the three strategies for referable DR. We found that the FP + SI-OCT strategy demonstrated superior sensitivity (87.69% vs 61.53%) and specificity (98.29% vs 92.47%) in detecting DME when compared to the FP-based strategy. Importantly, the FP + SI-OCT strategy outperformed the FP-based strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of $8016 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), while the FP + SD-OCT strategy was less cost-effective, with an ICER of $45,754/QALY. Our results were robust to extensive sensitivity analyses, with the FP + SI-OCT strategy standing as the dominant choice in 69.36% of simulations conducted at the current willingness-to-pay threshold. In summary, incorporating SI-OCT into FP-based screening offers substantial enhancements in sensitivity, specificity for detecting DME, and most notably, cost-effectiveness for DR screening.
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.