SynthesisBMC ophthalmology2026
Diagnostic accuracy of deep learning using ultra-widefield fundus imaging for retinal detachment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC ophthalmology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRetinal detachment (RD) requires prompt detection to prevent vision loss. Ultra-widefield (UWF) imaging captures the peripheral retina, and deep learning (DL) may enable automated RD detection. We aimed to systematically review and meta-analyze the diagnostic accuracy of DL applied to UWF images for detecting RD.
methodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, and reference lists (last search 22 May 2025) for diagnostic-accuracy studies evaluating DL models for retinal detachment on UWF images with extractable 2 × 2 data. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and concerns regarding applicability using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2). Sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) were pooled using random-effects models, with subgroup analyses by dataset origin (internal vs. external) and retinal detachment spectrum.
resultsWe included 11 studies (2017–2024) using UWF imaging and DL, with test set sizes ranging from 89 to 6,222 images. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94–0.96) and 0.99 (95% CI, 0.99–0.99); the AUC of the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) = 0.9962. Heterogeneity was high (I² = 92% for sensitivity; 90% for specificity). In subgroup analyses, external evaluations showed higher sensitivity than internal ones (0.97 vs. 0.92), with similarly high specificity (both ≈ 0.99). Heterogeneity remained substantial within subgroups. QUADAS-2 indicated a low risk of bias in most domains, with unclear index test risk common due to non-prespecified thresholds.
conclusionsDL applied to UWF imaging shows high diagnostic accuracy for RD, with pooled sensitivity and specificity of 0.95 and 0.99, respectively, and an AUC of 0.9962. However, the evidence is limited by substantial heterogeneity, inconsistent index-test reporting, and variation in case spectrum and sample size, which may constrain generalizability. Overall, these findings suggest that DL combined with UWF imaging is likely to serve as a valuable adjunctive tool for RD detection and triage, particularly in settings where rapid, wide-field assessment is needed. REGISTRATION: UMIN-CTR UMIN000057903; PROSPERO CRD420251058209.
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.