Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39671194›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Loss to Follow-Up in Patients With Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy or Diabetic Macular Edema.

Ryan S Huang, Sumana C Naidu, Andrew Mihalache, Marko M Popovic, Peter J Kertes, David Sarraf, SriniVas R Sadda, Rajeev H Muni, Radha P Kohly

Abstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
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

9 authors.

Ryan S HuangTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sumana C NaiduDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Andrew MihalacheTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Marko M PopovicDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peter J KertesDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
David SarrafStein Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
SriniVas R SaddaDoheny Eye Institute, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles.
Rajeev H MuniDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Radha P KohlyDepartment of Ophthalmology and Vision Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Effective management of proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) requires reliable patient follow-up to prevent disease progression. Objective: To investigate the sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with being lost to follow-up (LTFU) among individuals with PDR or DME treated with anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) intravitreal injections (IVIs) or panretinal photocoagulation (PRP). Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included a multicenter, retrospective review of patients with PDR or DME treated in Toronto, Canada, from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2021. Data were analyzed from February 1 to May 31, 2024. Exposures: All patients received at least 1 anti-VEGF IVI or PRP session. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the LTFU rate, defined as the absence of an ophthalmic visit or intervention in the 1-year period following an individual's last visit with the treating retinal specialist. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were conducted to evaluate associations between sociodemographic and clinical factors with the LTFU rate. Results: Overall, 2961 patients with PDR or DME (mean [SD] age, 71 [13] years; 1640 [55.4%] male) were included, of whom 507 (17.1%) were LTFU over a mean (SD) follow-up period of 61 (22) months. In the multivariable analysis, older patients (age ≥85 years vs age <65 years: odds ratio [OR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.81; P = .002), those with worse baseline visual acuity (>20/200 Snellen vs 20/40 Snellen or better: OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48-0.97; P = .04), those with DME (OR vs no DME, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.83; P = .003), those with frequent clinic visits (≥6 visits vs <6 visits: OR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.62-0.98; P = .04), and those with a high anti-VEGF IVI burden in the first year (OR vs low anti-VEGF burden, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.76; P = .006) were less likely to be LTFU. In contrast, males (OR vs females, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.04-1.52; P = .04), patients living further from the point of care (>200 vs ≤20 km OR, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.85-3.76; P < .001), and those treated with PRP (OR vs anti-VEGF IVIs, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.24-3.55; P < .001) were more likely to be LTFU. Compared with White patients, Black patients (OR, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.50-2.95; P < .001) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.05-2.21; P = .03) were more likely to be LTFU. Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found multiple factors associated with LTFU rates. Identifying individuals at higher risk of LTFU and developing targeted strategies may reduce disease progression and vision loss in individuals with PDR.

Indexed as

Angiogenesis InhibitorsDiabetic RetinopathyLost to Follow-UpMacular EdemaAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansIntravitreal InjectionsMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesVascular Endothelial Growth Factor AAngiogenesis InhibitorsVascular Endothelial Growth Factor A

Identifiers

PMID39671194
PMCPMC11645645

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.