SynthesisTurkish journal of ophthalmology2025
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Approaches in Developing Countries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Turkish journal of ophthalmology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is one of the primary causes of vision loss among people living with diabetes and is expected to rise globally in the coming years. Effective screening strategies are essential, particularly in developing countries where resources and access to specialized care are limited. Our objective was to assess how accurately different screening methods detect DR, specifically artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools, portable fundus cameras, and trained non-ophthalmologist personnel, implemented in a developing country. Materials and Methods: A literature search was conducted in ScienceDirect, PubMed, and the Cochrane Library. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. While all included studies were reviewed qualitatively, only those evaluating AI-based screening tools were included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis was performed using MetaDisc 2.0 to calculate pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, and likelihood ratios for any DR, referable DR, and vision-threatening DR. Results: A total of 25 studies were included, with 21 AI-based studies eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity respectively were 0.890 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.845-0.924) and 0.900 (95% CI: 0.832-0.942) for any DR, 0.933 (95% CI: 0.890-0.960) and 0.903 (95% CI: 0.871-0.928) for referable DR, and 0.891 (95% CI: 0.393-0.990) and 0.936 (95% CI: 0.837-0.977) for vision-threatening DR. Meta-regression identified camera type as a significant factor. Portable fundus cameras and general physicians showed good agreement with the gold standards. Conclusion: These findings support the potential of AI-assisted DR screening in low-resource settings and highlight the complementary roles of portable imaging and task-shifting to trained non-specialists.
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.