Dataset Information

The Accuracy of Diagnostic Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the recommended glycemic measures for diagnosing diabetic retinopathy.

Methods

We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science databases from inception to July 2015 for observational studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-hour plasma glucose (2h-PG). Random effects models for the diagnostic odds ratio (dOR) value computed by Moses' constant for a linear model and 95% CIs were used to calculate the accuracy of the test. Hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curves (HSROC) were used to summarize the overall test performance.

Results

Eleven published studies were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled dOR values for the diagnosis of retinopathy were 16.32 (95% CI 13.86-19.22) for HbA1c and 4.87 (95% CI 4.39-5.40) for FPG. The area under the HSROC was 0.837 (95% CI 0.781-0.892) for HbA1c and 0.735 (95% CI 0.657-0.813) for FPG. The 95% confidence region for the point that summarizes the overall test performance of the included studies occurs where the cut-offs ranged from 6.1% (43.2 mmol/mol) to 7.8% (61.7 mmol/mol) for HbA1c and from 7.8 to 9.3 mmol/L for FPG. In the four studies that provided information regarding 2h-PG, the pooled accuracy estimates for HbA1c were similar to those of 2h-PG; the overall performance for HbA1c was superior to that for FPG.

Conclusions

The three recommended tests for the diagnosis of type 2 diabetes in nonpregnant adults showed sufficient accuracy for their use in clinical settings, although the overall accuracy for the diagnosis of retinopathy was similar for HbA1c and 2h-PG, which were both more accurate than for FPG. Due to the variability and inconveniences of the glucose level-based methods, HbA1c appears to be the most appropriate method for the diagnosis diabetic retinopathy.

SUBMITTER: Martinez-Vizcaino V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4849768 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Accuracy of Diagnostic Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Martínez-Vizcaíno Vicente V Cavero-Redondo Iván I Álvarez-Bueno Celia C Rodríguez-Artalejo Fernando F

PloS one 20160428 4

<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the recommended glycemic measures for diagnosing diabetic retinopathy.<h4>Methods</h4>We systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science databases from inception to July 2015 for observational studies comparing the diagnostic accuracy of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c), fasting plasma glucose (FPG), and 2-hour plasma glucose (2h-PG). Random effects models for the diagnostic odds ratio ...[more]

PMID: 27123641

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundVisual impairment from diabetic retinopathy (DR) is an increasing global public health concern, which is preventable with screening and early treatment. Digital retinal imaging has become a preferred choice as it enables higher coverage of screening. The aim of this review is to evaluate how different characteristics of the DR screening (DRS) test impact on diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and its relevance to a low-income setting.MethodsWe conducted a systematic literature search to identify clinic-based studies on DRS using digital retinal imaging of people with DM (PwDM). Summary estimates of different sub-groups were calculated using DTA values weighted according to the sample size. The DTA of each screening method was derived after exclusion of ungradable images and considering the eye as the unit of analysis. The meta-analysis included studies which measured DTA of detecting any level of DR. We also examined the effect on detection from using different combinations of retinal fields, pupil status, index test graders and setting.ResultsSix thousand six hundred forty-six titles and abstracts were retrieved, and data were extracted from 122 potentially eligible full reports. Twenty-six studies were included in the review, and 21 studies, mostly from high-income settings (18/21, 85.7%), were included in the meta-analysis. The highest sensitivity was observed in the mydriatic greater than two field strategy (92%, 95% CI 90-94%). The highest specificity was observed in greater than two field methods (94%, 95% CI 93-96%) where mydriasis did not affect specificity. Overall, there was no difference in sensitivity between non-mydriatic and mydriatic methods (86%, 95% CI 85-87) after exclusion of ungradable images. The highest DTA (sensitivity 90%, 95% CI 88-91%; specificity 95%, 95% CI 94-96%) was observed when screening was delivered at secondary/tertiary level clinics.ConclusionsNon-mydriatic two-field strategy could be a more pragmatic approach in starting DRS programmes for facility-based PwDM in low-income settings, with dilatation of the pupils of those who have ungradable images. There was insufficient evidence in primary studies to draw firm conclusions on how graders' background influences DTA. Conducting more context-specific DRS validation studies in low-income and non-ophthalmic settings can be recommended.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetic retinopathy (DR), a common complication of diabetes mellitus, is the leading cause of impaired vision in adults worldwide. Smartphone ophthalmoscopy involves using a smartphone camera for digital retinal imaging. Utilizing smartphones to detect DR is potentially more affordable, accessible, and easier to use than conventional methods.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine the diagnostic accuracy of various smartphone ophthalmoscopy approaches for detecting DR in diabetic patients.MethodsWe performed an electronic search on the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for literature published from January 2000 to November 2018. We included studies involving diabetic patients, which compared the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone ophthalmoscopy for detecting DR to an accurate or commonly employed reference standard, such as indirect ophthalmoscopy, slit-lamp biomicroscopy, and tabletop fundus photography. Two reviewers independently screened studies against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool, with disagreements resolved via consensus. Sensitivity and specificity were pooled using the random effects model. A summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve was constructed. This review is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies guidelines.ResultsIn all, nine studies involving 1430 participants were included. Most studies were of high quality, except one study with limited applicability because of its reference standard. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detecting any DR was 87% (95% CI 74%-94%) and 94% (95% CI 81%-98%); mild nonproliferative DR (NPDR) was 39% (95% CI 10%-79%) and 95% (95% CI 91%-98%); moderate NPDR was 71% (95% CI 57%-81%) and 95% (95% CI 88%-98%); severe NPDR was 80% (95% CI 49%-94%) and 97% (95% CI 88%-99%); proliferative DR (PDR) was 92% (95% CI 79%-97%) and 99% (95% CI 96%-99%); diabetic macular edema was 79% (95% CI 63%-89%) and 93% (95% CI 82%-97%); and referral-warranted DR was 91% (95% CI 86%-94%) and 89% (95% CI 56%-98%). The area under SROC curve ranged from 0.879 to 0.979. The diagnostic odds ratio ranged from 11.3 to 1225.ConclusionsWe found heterogeneous evidence showing that smartphone ophthalmoscopy performs well in detecting DR. The diagnostic accuracy for PDR was highest. Future studies should standardize reference criteria and classification criteria and evaluate other available forms of smartphone ophthalmoscopy in primary care settings.

Project description:Background The relationship between uric acid (UA) and diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains ambiguous, and the results of current studies on the UA levels in patients with DR are conflicting. A meta-analysis was performed to provide a better understanding of the relationship between UA levels and DR. Methods PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched until December 11, 2021 to identify eligible studies, that compared the UA levels of the case group (patients with DR) and control group (controls with diabetes and healthy participants). The weighted mean difference (WMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to evaluate the difference in UA levels between the case and control groups. Results Twenty-one studies involving 4,340 patients with DR and 8,595 controls (8,029 controls with diabetes and 566 healthy participants) were included in this meta-analysis. We found that patients with DR had significantly higher UA levels than those in the controls with diabetes (WMD = 36.28; 95% CI: 15.68, 56.89; P < 0.001) and healthy participants (WMD = 70.80; 95% CI: 19.85, 121.75; P = 0.006). There was an obvious heterogeneity among the 21 studies (I2 = 97%, P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses of different phases of DR showed that UA levels were significantly increased in participants with proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) (WMD = 46.57; 95% CI: 28.51, 64.63; P < 0.001) than in controls with diabetes; however, the difference is not statistically significant when comparing UA levels in patients with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR) and controls with diabetes (WMD = 22.50; 95% CI: −6.07, 51.08; P = 0.120). In addition, UA levels were higher in participants with a body mass index (BMI) ≥25.0 kg/m2 and over 15 years of diabetes. Univariate meta-regression analysis revealed that BMI (P = 0.007, Adj R2 = 40.12%) and fasting blood glucose (FBG) (P = 0.040, Adj R2 = 29.72%) contributed to between-study heterogeneity. Conclusions In conclusion, our study provides evidence that UA levels are higher in patients with DR than those in the controls, but this difference is not statistically significant in the early phases. UA might be a potential biomarker for identifying disease severity in patients with DR, rather than predicting the onset of DR among patients with diabetes. However, more prospective and high-quality clinical evidence is required to confirm these present findings. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=297708.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:With increasing diabetes trends worldwide, morbidity, mortality and associated costs due to diabetes-related complications are a global public health concern. Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is among the leading causes of vision loss at the global level; accurate estimates of DR burden is of crucial importance for planning, implementing and evaluating DR prevention and care interventions.The available evidence on DR prevalence at the global level, dating back to 2008, only considered data from selected regions. Taking into account the rapidly changing patterns in DR epidemiology, the aim of the current study is to carry out a systematic review and meta-analysis to derive solid and updated estimates on global and setting-specific DR prevalence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The systematic review methods have been defined following PRISMA guidelines. Studies published from 2008 through 2018 will be identified searching the electronic databases Embase, Medline, Cochrane, ISI Web of Knowledge, as well as through grey literature search. Retrieved records will be independently screened by two authors and relevant data will be extracted from studies reporting data on DR prevalence among individuals with diabetes. Prevalence pooled estimates of any form of DR and vision-threatening DR will be computed applying random-effects meta-analysis. Interstudy heterogeneity will be assessed using the I2 statistic and explored through meta regressions and subgroup analyses. Depending on data availability, we plan to conduct subgroup analyses by study population, diabetes type, DR severity, geographical region and other selected clinical and sociodemographic variables of interest. Quality appraisal of the studies will be performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics approval is not required as this is a review of anonymised published data. Findings of the final report will be shared with the scientific community through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presentation at conferences, as well as with key stakeholders, including national and international health authorities, health policy makers, healthcare professionals and the general population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:CRD42018085260.

Dataset Information

The Accuracy of Diagnostic Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The Accuracy of Diagnostic Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets