IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pgph00/0002160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Holijah Uy
  • Christopher Fielding
  • Ameer Hohlfeld
  • Eleanor Ochodo
  • Abraham Opare
  • Elton Mukonda
  • Deon Minnies
  • Mark E Engel

Abstract

Retrospective studies on artificial intelligence (AI) in screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) have shown promising results in addressing the mismatch between the capacity to implement DR screening and increasing DR incidence. This review sought to evaluate the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of AI in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy (RDR) in real-world settings. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science on 9 February 2023. We included prospective DTA studies assessing AI against trained human graders (HGs) in screening for RDR in patients with diabetes. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed methodological quality against QUADAS-2 criteria. We used the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristics (HSROC) model to pool estimates of sensitivity and specificity and, forest plots and SROC plots to visually examine heterogeneity in accuracy estimates. From our initial search results of 3899 studies, we included 15 studies comprising 17 datasets. Meta-analyses revealed a sensitivity of 95.33% (95%CI: 90.60–100%) and specificity of 92.01% (95%CI: 87.61–96.42%) for patient-level analysis (10 datasets, N = 45,785) while, for the eye-level analysis, sensitivity was 91.24% (95%CI: 79.15–100%) and specificity, 93.90% (95%CI: 90.63–97.16%) (7 datasets, N = 15,390). Subgroup analyses did not provide variations in the diagnostic accuracy of country classification and DR classification criteria. However, a moderate increase was observed in diagnostic accuracy in the primary-level healthcare settings: sensitivity of 99.35% (95%CI: 96.85–100%), specificity of 93.72% (95%CI: 88.83–98.61%) and, a minimal decrease in the tertiary-level healthcare settings: sensitivity of 94.71% (95%CI: 89.00–100%), specificity of 90.88% (95%CI: 83.22–98.53%). Sensitivity analyses did not show any variations in studies that included diabetic macular edema in the RDR definition, nor studies with ≥3 HGs. This review provides evidence, for the first time from prospective studies, for the effectiveness of AI in screening for RDR in real-world settings. The results may serve to strengthen existing guidelines to improve current practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Holijah Uy & Christopher Fielding & Ameer Hohlfeld & Eleanor Ochodo & Abraham Opare & Elton Mukonda & Deon Minnies & Mark E Engel, 2023. "Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(9), pages 1-23, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0002160
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002160
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0002160
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pgph.0002160&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002160?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mapa Mudiyanselage Prabhath Nishantha Piyasena & Gudlavalleti Venkata S Murthy & Jennifer L Y Yip & Clare Gilbert & Maria Zuurmond & Tunde Peto & Iris Gordon & Suwin Hewage & Sureshkumar Kamalakannan, 2019. "Systematic review on barriers and enablers for access to diabetic retinopathy screening services in different income settings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-29, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stevens Bechange & Anne Roca & Elena Schmidt & Munazza Gillani & Leena Ahmed & Robina Iqbal & Imran Nazir & Anna Ruddock & Muhammed Bilal & Itfaq Khaliq Khan & Sandeep Buttan & Emma Jolley, 2021. "Diabetic retinopathy service delivery and integration into the health system in Pakistan—Findings from a multicentre qualitative study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(12), pages 1-20, December.
    2. repec:plo:pone00:0237542 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0002160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.