Cargando…
Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10511145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37729122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002160 |
_version_ | 1785108084987789312 |
---|---|
author | Uy, Holijah Fielding, Christopher Hohlfeld, Ameer Ochodo, Eleanor Opare, Abraham Mukonda, Elton Minnies, Deon Engel, Mark E. |
author_facet | Uy, Holijah Fielding, Christopher Hohlfeld, Ameer Ochodo, Eleanor Opare, Abraham Mukonda, Elton Minnies, Deon Engel, Mark E. |
author_sort | Uy, Holijah |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10511145 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-105111452023-09-21 Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis Uy, Holijah Fielding, Christopher Hohlfeld, Ameer Ochodo, Eleanor Opare, Abraham Mukonda, Elton Minnies, Deon Engel, Mark E. PLOS Glob Public Health Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2023-09-20 /pmc/articles/PMC10511145/ /pubmed/37729122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002160 Text en © 2023 Uy et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Uy, Holijah Fielding, Christopher Hohlfeld, Ameer Ochodo, Eleanor Opare, Abraham Mukonda, Elton Minnies, Deon Engel, Mark E. Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title | Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full | Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_fullStr | Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_short | Diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis |
title_sort | diagnostic test accuracy of artificial intelligence in screening for referable diabetic retinopathy in real-world settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10511145/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37729122 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0002160 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT uyholijah diagnostictestaccuracyofartificialintelligenceinscreeningforreferablediabeticretinopathyinrealworldsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT fieldingchristopher diagnostictestaccuracyofartificialintelligenceinscreeningforreferablediabeticretinopathyinrealworldsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT hohlfeldameer diagnostictestaccuracyofartificialintelligenceinscreeningforreferablediabeticretinopathyinrealworldsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT ochodoeleanor diagnostictestaccuracyofartificialintelligenceinscreeningforreferablediabeticretinopathyinrealworldsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT opareabraham diagnostictestaccuracyofartificialintelligenceinscreeningforreferablediabeticretinopathyinrealworldsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT mukondaelton diagnostictestaccuracyofartificialintelligenceinscreeningforreferablediabeticretinopathyinrealworldsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT minniesdeon diagnostictestaccuracyofartificialintelligenceinscreeningforreferablediabeticretinopathyinrealworldsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis AT engelmarke diagnostictestaccuracyofartificialintelligenceinscreeningforreferablediabeticretinopathyinrealworldsettingsasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis |