ArticleBMC ophthalmology2026
Diabetic retinopathy screening in a high-latitude rural population of Northern Norway.
Article 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo estimate the prevalence of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular edema (DME) in Finnmark, the northernmost county in Norway, and to assess the safety and quality of a two-step screening routine utilizing certified nurse or optometrist as primary graders.
methodsThis cross-sectional study included 300 patients attending for routine DR screening at Kirkenes Hospital between October 2021 and December 2022. Retinal images were graded independently by a certified nurse/optometrist and an ophthalmologist. Discrepancies were resolved by a retina specialist and intergrader agreement was assessed.
resultsThe prevalence of any DR was 56.3% (82.8% in type I diabetes (T1D), 53.5% in type II (T2D)). DME based on photography was present in 11.3%, and in 12.3% based on OCT. Severe non-proliferative DR (NPDR) or proliferative DR (PDR) was observed in 37.9% of participants with T1D and 12.2% of those with T2D. Intergrader agreement for DR grade and DME based on photography was high; Cohen’s weighted kappa (k) was 0.96 and 0.91 respectively. Intergrader agreement for identifying referable DR was 0.97.
conclusionsThe prevalence of DR and DME in this rural northern Norwegian hospital-based cohort was higher than previously reported Norwegian estimates, likely partly due to differences in population characteristics and screening methodology. The two-step screening model demonstrated high accuracy in differentiating referable from non-referable DR, supporting its implementation to improve screening efficiency while maintaining diagnostic safety.
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.