ArticleDiabetologia2025
A simple score-based strategy to improve equity of the UK biennial diabetic eye screening protocol among people deemed as low risk.
Article in Diabetologia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cohort Profile: The North East London Diabetes Study (NELDS).International journal of epidemiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aims/hypothesisBiennial, as opposed to annual, screening for diabetic retinopathy was recently introduced within England for those considered to be at 'low risk'. This study aims to examine the impact that annual vs biennial screening has on equitable risk of diagnosis of sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) among people at 'low risk' and to develop an amelioration protocol.
methodsIn the North East London Diabetic Eye Screening Programme (NELDESP), 105,083 people without diabetic retinopathy were identified on two consecutive screening visits between January 2012 and September 2023. Data for these individuals were linked to electronic health records (EHR). Characteristics associated with subsequent STDR diagnosis were identified (including age, gender, ethnicity and diabetes duration), and logistic regression was performed to identify people who require annual screening, using variables available to the NELDESP and data from EHR. Simulations of the biennial screening protocol, and of protocols incorporating the outcomes of the logistic models and a simplified points model, were implemented, and the relative risk of STDR calculated at each screening appointment was compared amongst various population subgroups. The results were validated using data from the South East London DESP.
resultsAmong the low-risk participants, there were 3694 incident STDR cases over a mean duration of 5.0 years (SD 3.4 years). Under the biennial screening protocol, almost all groups had a significantly higher risk of STDR diagnosis compared with people aged 41 years or older who were of white ethnicity and had been living with diabetes for <10 years. Compared with biennial screening, a simplified screening protocol based on age, diabetes duration and ethnicity reduced the number of delayed STDR diagnoses from 39% to 25%, with a more equitable performance across population groups, and a modest impact on screening appointment numbers (46% vs 57% reduction in annual screening appointments, respectively). CONCLUSIONS/
interpretationA simple, clinically deliverable, personalised protocol for identifying who should be screened annually or biennially for diabetic eye disease would improve equity in risk of delayed STDR diagnosis per appointment.
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.