ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
High Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in an Outpatient Podiatry Clinic and Associated Barriers to Ophthalmic Care.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2025. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision loss among working-age adults. However, the prevalence of DR among patients with diabetic foot disease-a signal of advanced systemic diabetes complications-is underexplored. Additionally, the substantial comorbidity burden associated with diabetic foot disease may result in a higher incidence of or distinct barriers to ophthalmic care, including structural (access to healthcare), behavioral (prioritization of care), and economic (cost of care) factors, compounding risk of vision loss. This study assesses the prevalence of DR in a podiatric clinic while also investigating participant-reported barriers to routine ophthalmic follow-up. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study that included patients age ≥18 (n=62) receiving diabetic foot care at an outpatient podiatric clinic in 2021 and 2022. DR status was determined through point-of-care digital retinal images or prior DR diagnosis documented in the electronic medical record. Retinal images were interpreted remotely by a board-certified ophthalmologist. Self-reported barriers to regular ophthalmic care were recorded among participants who were lost to follow-up ophthalmic care. Participants were also surveyed for favorable incentives to promote ophthalmic follow-up. Results: Our findings revealed a high prevalence of DR, with 32 (54%) participants diagnosed with DR and 10 (17%) participants having sight-threatening DR. Notably, 17 (29%) participants were newly diagnosed with DR as a direct result of this study. Of the 62 participants enrolled, 29 (47%) were lost to ophthalmic care. All of these participations reported one or more barriers to receiving ophthalmic care, predominantly related to competing social, economic, and medical challenges, with ophthalmic care being chronically underprioritized. Financial incentives were most favored by participants as an effective means to promote ophthalmic follow-up. Conclusion: The high prevalence of DR, especially undiagnosed DR, in conjunction with significant barriers to ophthalmic care highlights a critical need for improved screening in outpatient podiatric settings. Integrating digital fundus cameras into outpatient podiatric clinic workflow may enhance DR detection and prevent vision loss in this high-risk population. Addressing identified barriers to routine ophthalmic care may further improve the rate of follow-up care and reduce the burden of DR-related vision loss among patients with diabetic foot disease.
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.