Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40997051›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2025

Artificial intelligence applications in refractive error management: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Josephine Ampong, Sylvia Agyekum, Werner Eisenbarth, Albert Kwadjo Amoah Andoh, Isaiah Osei Duah Junior, Gabriel Amankwah, Gabriel Kwaku Agbeshie, Eldrick Adu Acquah, Clement Afari, Emmanuel Assan and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

14 authors.

Josephine AmpongDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-2390-7230
Sylvia AgyekumDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Werner EisenbarthDepartment of Applied Sciences and Mechatronics, Hochschule München University of Applied Sciences, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2142-6513
Albert Kwadjo Amoah AndohDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-5035-3655
Isaiah Osei Duah JuniorDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4501-8602
Gabriel AmankwahDepartment of Chemistry, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4866-9091
Gabriel Kwaku AgbeshieDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-6135-7111
Eldrick Adu AcquahDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5618-568X
Clement AfariDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Emmanuel AssanDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Saphiel Osei PokuDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Karen Ama SamDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Josephine Ampomah BoatengDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Kwadwo Owusu AkuffoDepartment of Optometry and Visual Science, College of Science, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6683-249X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has transformed healthcare, and is becoming increasingly useful in eye care. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the use of AI in the diagnosis, detection, prediction, progression, and treatment of refractive errors (REs). The study adhered to the PRISMA checklist to ensure transparent reporting. The following databases were searched from inception to January 2025, with an English language restriction: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. Two independent reviewers performed study screening, data extraction, and quality assessment, with a third author resolving discrepancies. All original studies on the use of AI techniques in RE were identified and the effectiveness of these techniques was compared. A critical appraisal was conducted using the QUADAS-2 risk-of-bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using R software (version 4.5.0). Of 6,288 records retrieved, 45 met eligibility for systematic review, with 19 included in meta-analysis. Among these 45 studies, 55.5% (25/45) applied deep learning (DL) approaches, while 44.4% (20/45) employed machine learning (ML) techniques. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary of receiver operating characteristic (SROC) for detection and/or diagnosis studies were 0.94 (95%CI, 0.90-0.97), 0.96 (95%CI, 0.92-0.98), 382.56 (95% CI 111.91 -1307.77) and 0.98 (95%CI, 0.91-0.97), respectively. For prediction of REs, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, DOR, and SROC were 0.87 (95%CI, 0.73-0.94), 0.96 (95%CI, 0.90-0.980), 159.94 (95% CI, 40.17-636.85) and 0.96 (95%CI, 0.85-0.95), respectively. Among studies focused on progression, performance metrics ranged from AUC = 0.845-0.99, R² = 0.613-0.964, and MAE = 0.119D-0.49D. In treatment studies, performance varied more widely, with AUC values between 0.60-0.94 and MAE from 0.17D-0.54D. Collectively, AI technologies, particularly DL and ML, achieved high diagnostic and predictive accuracy in RE management. Future research should focus on developing generalizable models trained on diverse datasets to ensure broad clinical relevance.

Identifiers

PMID40997051
PMCPMC12463214

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.