IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0154411.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno
  • Iván Cavero-Redondo
  • Celia Álvarez-Bueno
  • Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Vicente Martínez-Vizcaíno & Iván Cavero-Redondo & Celia Álvarez-Bueno & Fernando Rodríguez-Artalejo, 2016. "The Accuracy of Diagnostic Methods for Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0154411
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154411
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154411
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0154411&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0154411?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
    ---><---

    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:pone00:0154411. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.