ReviewInternational journal of ophthalmology2026
Why aren't we using AI in eye clinics? A systematic review of barriers and solutions in AI-based fundus image diagnostics for ocular diseases.
Review in International journal of 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
Artificial intelligence (AI) has shown remarkable accuracy in the diagnosis of common ocular diseases such as diabetic retinopathy (DR), glaucoma, retinopathy of prematurity (ROP), and age-related macular degeneration (AMD), often matching or even outperforming expert clinicians. Despite these advancements, AI adoption in clinical settings remains limited due to key barriers. This systematic review evaluates 34 studies (2018-2025) highlighting AI's diagnostic performance (often >90% accuracy) while pointing out significant gaps in real-world deployment. We identify these persistent challenges through comprehensive analysis of current literature and propose actionable pathways to bridge the "last-mile gap" between research and clinical practice. This review pointed out three significant gaps in real-world deployment. These include 1) disjointed integration into clinical workflows, 2) lack of transparency in AI decision-making, and 3) poor generalizability across diverse populations. Our findings provide a framework for advancing AI implementation in ocular diagnostics to achieve equitable, scalable, and trustworthy solutions for global vision care.
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.