ReviewHealth science reports2026
Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Toward Diabetic Retinopathy Among People With Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Health science reports, 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
Purpose: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the levels of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice (KAP) regarding Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) among people with diabetes and to explore demographic and contextual factors influencing these components. Methods: Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, with no time restriction (updated to 2025). We included 29 questionnaire-based cross-sectional studies comprising 14,830 participants. Study quality was assessed using the AXIS tool. Data were analyzed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) and OpenMeta [Analyst] software with a random-effects model. Results: The pooled prevalence of good knowledge, positive attitude, and good practice toward DR was 43.1%, 49.6%, and 40.0%, respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed higher KAP levels in high-income countries compared to low- and middle-income countries. Meta-regression showed a statistically significant but minimal effect of positive attitude on good practice ( Conclusion: KAP levels regarding DR remain suboptimal globally. Tailored, context-specific interventions are essential to improve awareness and preventive behaviors, especially in resource-limited settings.
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.