ArticleClinical optometry2025
Diabetic Eye Screening: Evaluation and Comparison of the Grading Results Between Community and Hospital Eye Services.
Article in Clinical optometry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetes is a significant global health crisis, affecting approximately 828 million individuals worldwide, including 5.6 million in the UK and an estimated 212,000 in Wales. Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of blindness in the UK and severely impacts the working-age population. Effective screening programs are vital for early detection and intervention, as prolonged diabetes increases the risk of developing DR. Since 2003, Diabetic Eye Screening Wales (DESW) has coordinated DR screening in Wales, but no studies have assessed grading agreement across the screening pathway. Methods: This retrospective study analysed data from January 2021 to December 2023, involving 762 eyes from 486 patients referred across different grading levels. The RxMx system was used to classify retinopathy and maculopathy. The agreement between primary graders (DESW) and secondary graders (community optometrists) was compared, along with that between secondary and tertiary graders (hospital eye services). Percentage agreement and weighted Cohen's Kappa were calculated to assess interobserver reliability. Results: The percentage agreement was 60.4% (weighted Cohen's Kappa of 0.423, indicating moderate agreement) between primary and secondary graders for retinopathy. For maculopathy, the agreement was 69.6% (weighted Cohen's Kappa of 0.42). Between secondary and tertiary graders, the percentage agreement for retinopathy was 61.5% (Kappa of 0.634, indicating substantial agreement), while for maculopathy, it was 75.0% (Kappa of 0.618). Conclusion: The findings show fair agreement between primary and secondary graders and a substantial agreement between secondary and tertiary graders. These results highlight concerns regarding the reliability of current screening practices and suggest incorporating optical coherence tomography (OCT) to enhance grading accuracy. Additionally, implementation of personalised risk-based screening may help reduce the burden of DR on healthcare services, although consideration is necessary to prevent exacerbating existing health inequalities. An electronic system for shared imaging data could further improve screening reliability and grader competency assessment.
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.