ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2026
Interpreting Services Bridge Language Gaps in Diabetic Retinopathy Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: In patients with diabetic retinopathy (DR), vision loss can be prevented through consistent follow-up. Patients can be lost to follow-up (LTFU) for several reasons, including language barriers between the patient and the healthcare provider. This language discordance is known to contribute to nonadherence to diabetic care, but its role in non-adherence among patients with DR has not been studied. Here, we compare follow-up between Spanish-speaking patients with interpreters (SSI) and English-speaking (ES) patients receiving intravitreal injections for DR to determine whether language discordance impacts follow-up when interpreting services are provided. Patients and methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with either non-proliferative DR with diabetic macular edema or proliferative DR, and who received anti-vascular endothelial growth factor injections at The University of Kansas Health System between January 1, 2012, and April 1, 2022. These patients were treated by English-speaking retina specialists, so all Spanish-speaking patients were offered interpreting services. Patients were excluded if they had no injections before April 1, 2021, or if they passed away during the study period. Patients were defined as SSI or ES based on self-reported preferred language. Patients were defined as adherent to follow-up (ATFU) if they returned to clinic within 1 month of the recommended time. LTFU was defined as no subsequent clinic visits within 12 months of an injection. Results: Of the 527 patients, 57 (10.8%) were SSI and 470 (89.2%) were ES. Groups did not significantly differ in rates of ATFU after the initial clinic visit (78.9% SSI vs 82.8% ES; Conclusion: When language discordance was addressed with interpreting services, SSI patients had similar and even superior follow-up adherence compared to ES counterparts. This demonstrates the value of interpreting services in retina specialty care. Future prospective studies can clarify the relationship between language and follow-up.
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.