ArticleCureus2026
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: Predictors and Barriers Among Patients With Diabetes Mellitus in South-West Nigeria.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundDiabetic retinopathy (DR) remains a leading cause of preventable visual impairment globally, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where structured screening programs are limited. This study assessed the uptake of DR screening, identified predictors of attendance, and explored barriers among adults with diabetes mellitus (DM) attending public secondary healthcare facilities in Lagos State, Nigeria.
methodsA hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 288 adults with confirmed diabetes using a systematic sampling approach. Data were collected using an interviewer-administered questionnaire assessing sociodemographic, clinical, knowledge, and screening characteristics. Retinal examination was performed to determine DR status. Bivariate analyses were conducted using chi-square tests, and multivariate logistic regression identified independent predictors of screening uptake. In-depth interviews with four physicians and eight patients were analyzed thematically to contextualize quantitative findings.
resultsThe mean age was 60.4 ± 10.8 years, and 185 (64.2%) were female. Overall, 106 participants (36.8%) reported prior DR screening, while 182 (63.2%) had never been screened. On examination, 85 (29.5%) had DR, including 77 (26.7%) with non-proliferative DR and 3 (1.0%) with proliferative DR. Among never-screened participants, lack of physician referral (166; 91.2%), lack of health insurance (163; 89.6%), and poor awareness (159; 87.4%) were common barriers. Screening uptake was significantly associated with occupation (p = 0.003), duration of diabetes (p = 0.006), previous eye intervention (p < 0.001), good knowledge of DR (p < 0.001), and awareness that diabetes affects the eye (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, physician referral was the strongest independent predictor of screening (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 15.93; 95% CI 4.70-54.07; p < 0.001), followed by good knowledge of DR (AOR 3.73; 95% CI 1.66-8.39; p = 0.002), previous eye intervention (AOR 3.99; 95% CI 1.66-9.57; p = 0.002), and diabetes duration >5 years (AOR 1.94; 95% CI 1.02-3.70; p = 0.043). Qualitative findings revealed symptom-driven referral practices and limited awareness of screening guidelines.
conclusionDR screening uptake remains suboptimal in this setting, with provider referral and patient knowledge emerging as critical determinants. Strengthening guideline-based referral systems and structured patient education within diabetes clinics may substantially improve early detection and prevent avoidable blindness.
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.