PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 13, 2015British Journal of Ophthalmology90 citationsOpen Access

Extending the diabetic retinopathy screening interval beyond 1 year: systematic review

STSian Taylor‐PhillipsHMHema MistryRLRachael Leslie

Structured PICO

Does extending the diabetic retinopathy screening interval beyond 1 year safely maintain clinical outcomes in patients with diabetes mellitus?

P
Population
262,541 patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus (at least 87% type 2 diabetes) from 11 observational studies, 5 risk stratification modelling studies, and 9 economic studies
I
Intervention
Diabetic retinopathy screening interval extended beyond 1 year (e.g., 2-yearly)
C
Comparator
Annual (1-yearly) screening interval
O
Outcome
Incidence and progression of diabetic retinopathy

There is currently insufficient high-quality evidence to support extending the diabetic retinopathy screening interval beyond 1 year in the UK.

Limitations

  • Lack of experimental research designs (no RCTs)
  • High loss to follow-up (13-31%)
  • Heterogeneity in definitions of low risk
  • Variation in screening and grading protocols

Abstract

To determine whether the recommended screening interval for diabetic retinopathy (DR) in the UK can safely be extended beyond 1 year. Systematic review of clinical and cost-effectiveness studies. Nine databases were searched with no date restrictions. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, prognostic or economic modelling studies which described the incidence and progression of DR in populations with type 1 diabetes mellitus or type 2 diabetes mellitus of either sex and of any age reporting incidence and progression of DR in relation to screening interval (vs annual screening interval) and/or prognostic factors were included. Narrative synthesis was undertaken. 14,013 papers were identified, of which 11 observational studies, 5 risk stratification modelling studies and 9 economic studies were included. Data were available for 262,541 patients of whom at least 228,649 (87%) had type 2 diabetes. There were no RCTs. Studies concluded that there is little difference between clinical outcomes from screening 1 yearly or 2 yearly in low-risk patients. However there was high loss to follow-up (13-31%), heterogeneity in definitions of low risk and variation in screening and grading protocols for prior retinopathy results. Observational and economic modelling studies in low-risk patients show little difference in clinical outcomes between 1-year and 2-year screening intervals. The lack of experimental research designs and heterogeneity in definition of low risk considerably limits the reliability and validity of this conclusion. Cost-effectiveness findings were mixed. There is insufficient evidence to recommend a move to extend the screening interval beyond 1 year.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Taylor‐Phillips et al. (2015) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2127453fc57ec05c1e4d2ahttps://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2014-305938
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1A comparative evaluation of digital imaging, retinal photography and optometrist examination in screening for diabetic retinopathy2003 · 168 citations
  2. 2Diabetic Retinopathy1974 · 5,616 citations
  3. 3Good Practice Guidelines for Decision-Analytic Modelling in Health Technology Assessment2006 · 511 citations
  4. 4Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement2013 · 240 citations
  5. 5Incidence and Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy During 17 Years of a Population-Based Screening Program in England. Diabetes Care 2012;35:592–5962014 · 31 citations