ArticleNIHR open research2023
Can the diagnostic accuracy of newborn eye screening for congenital cataract be improved with digital imaging? The Digital Imaging versus Ophthalmoscopy (DIvO) study.
Article in NIHR open research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05282147 (Can the Diagnostic Accuracy of Newborn Eye Screening for Congenital Cataract be Improved With Digital Dual Light Source Imaging? The Digital Imaging vs Ophthalmoscopy), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Can the Diagnostic Accuracy of Newborn Eye Screening for Congenital Cataract be Improved With Digital Dual Light Source Imaging? The Digital Imaging vs Ophthalmoscopy (DIvO)Study.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Digital infrared reflex testing and asynchronous teleconsultation for infant eye screening.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Abstract: Background: Congenital cataract is the commonest cause of preventable child blindness in the world. It affects 1: 3000 babies, 60% of whom will have bilateral disease. Although screening of the newborn red-reflex with an ophthalmoscope is recommended, there are questions over this technique's accuracy, particularly in non-specialist hands. Several studies in enriched paediatric eye clinic populations have demonstrated superior accuracy when a digital image of the the eye's reflection to infrared light is evaluated. Aim: This study uses a prototype infrared digital camera to test the hypothesis that the sensitivity and specificity of newborn screening using evaluation of the "infrared-reflex" image is superior to the standard red-reflex examination using ophthalmoscopy. Methods: 140,000 newborn babies will be recruited into the study from at least 13 maternity units in England over an 18 month period. Babies will have both the standard red-reflex assessment and evaluation of the infrared-reflex using a prototype device. Since specialist gold-standard evaluation of every participant is impractical, bespoke data linkage requests to NHS England will be made. Data from the red-reflex evaluation and the presence of codes relating to cataract diagnosis and/or treatment in Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) will be retrieved for each participant a minimum of 6 months after their birth. This data will be used to calculate relative and absolute sensitivity and specificity for each screening test and comparison of accuracy using the McNemar test. Secondary outcome measures will include comparison of accuracy in different ethnic groups and screener usability scores. Anticipated impact Confirmation of the hypothesis will support development of a commercial screening device and the possible revision of newborn screening recommendations. Trial registration The study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov: NCT05282147.
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.