scholarly journals Single-Field Non-Mydriatic Fundus Photography for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-67
Author(s):  
Jiying Hu ◽  
Ruiting Chen ◽  
Ying Lu ◽  
Xiaoyan Dou ◽  
Baikang Ye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Single Field ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

Single-field fundus photography for diabetic retinopathy screening

Ophthalmology ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 111 (5) ◽  
pp. 1055-1062 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A Williams ◽  
Ingrid U Scott ◽  
Julia A Haller ◽  
Albert M Maguire ◽  
Dennis Marcus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Single Field ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

scholarly journals Imaging Modalities Employed in Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Review and Meta-Analysis

Diagnostics ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 1802
Author(s):  
Piotr Kanclerz ◽  
Raimo Tuuminen ◽  
Ramin Khoramnia
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Failure Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Imaging Modalities ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Technical Failure ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Field Imaging ◽  
Ultrawide Field Imaging ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

Introduction: Urbanization has caused dramatic changes in lifestyle, and these rapid transitions have led to an increased risk of noncommunicable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes. In terms of cost-effectiveness, screening for diabetic retinopathy is a critical aspect in diabetes management. The aim of this study was to review the imaging modalities employed for retinal examination in diabetic retinopathy screening. Methods: The PubMed and Web of Science databases were the main sources used to investigate the medical literature. An extensive search was performed to identify relevant articles concerning “imaging”, “diabetic retinopathy” and “screening” up to 1 June 2021. Imaging techniques were divided into the following: (i) mydriatic fundus photography, (ii) non-mydriatic fundus photography, (iii) smartphone-based imaging, and (iv) ultrawide-field imaging. A meta-analysis was performed to analyze the performance and technical failure rate of each method. Results: The technical failure rates for mydriatic and non-mydriatic digital fundus photography, smartphone-based and ultrawide-field imaging were 3.4% (95% CI: 2.3–4.6%), 12.1% (95% CI: 5.4–18.7%), 5.3% (95% CI: 1.5–9.0%) and 2.2% (95% CI: 0.3–4.0%), respectively. The rate was significantly different between all analyzed techniques (p < 0.001), and the overall failure rate was 6.6% (4.9–8.3%; I2 = 97.2%). The publication bias factor for smartphone-based imaging was significantly higher than for mydriatic digital fundus photography and non-mydriatic digital fundus photography (b = −8.61, b = −2.59 and b = −7.03, respectively; p < 0.001). Ultrawide-field imaging studies were excluded from the final sensitivity/specificity analysis, as the total number of patients included was too small. Conclusions: Regardless of the type of the device used, retinal photographs should be taken on eyes with dilated pupils, unless contraindicated, as this setting decreases the rate of ungradable images. Smartphone-based and ultrawide-field imaging may become potential alternative methods for optimized DR screening; however, there is not yet enough evidence for these techniques to displace mydriatic fundus photography.

Diabetic Retinopathy Screening: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Literature

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oluwaseun Egunsola ◽  
Laura E. Dowsett ◽  
Ruth Diaz ◽  
Michael Brent ◽  
Valeria Rac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy Screening ◽  
Qualitative Literature ◽  
Retinopathy Screening

scholarly journals Prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e040997
Author(s):  
Varo Kirthi ◽  
Paul Nderitu ◽  
Uazman Alam ◽  
Jennifer Evans ◽  
Sarah Nevitt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
International Diabetes Federation ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Fundus Photography ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Cochrane Library

IntroductionThere is growing evidence of a higher than expected prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes. This paper presents the protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis of retinopathy in prediabetes. The aim of the review is to estimate the prevalence of retinopathy in prediabetes and to summarise the current data.Methods and analysisThis protocol is developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A comprehensive electronic bibliographic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies will report prevalence data for retinopathy on fundus photography in adults with prediabetes. No time restrictions will be placed on the date of publication. Screening for eligible studies and data extraction will be conducted by two reviewers independently, using predefined inclusion criteria and prepiloted data extraction forms. Disagreements between the reviewers will be resolved by discussion, and if required, a third (senior) reviewer will arbitrate.The primary outcome is the prevalence of any standard features of diabetic retinopathy (DR) on fundus photography, as per International Clinical Diabetic Retinopathy Severity Scale (ICDRSS) classification. Secondary outcomes are the prevalence of (1) any retinal microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography that are not standard features of DR as per ICDRSS classification and (2) any macular microvascular abnormalities on fundus photography, including but not limited to the presence of macular exudates, microaneurysms and haemorrhages. Risk of bias for included studies will be assessed using a validated risk of bias tool for prevalence studies. Pooled estimates for the prespecified outcomes of interest will be calculated using random effects meta-analytic techniques. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required as this is a protocol for a systematic review and no primary data are to be collected. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at national and international meetings including Diabetes UK, European Association for the Study of Diabetes, American Diabetes Association and International Diabetes Federation conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020184820.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document