Article Text
Abstract
A short-cut systematic review was conducted using a described protocol. The three-part question addressed was: In adult patients presenting to the ED with diabetes-related visual symptoms, how effective is using a portable handheld fundus camera in diagnosing diabetic retinopathy?
MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched for relevant evidence. Altogether, 237 papers were found using the search strategy developed. 12 provided the best evidence to answer the three-part question. The data on first author name, publication year, country of origin, study type, study sample size, participant’s gender, reported effect sizes, main findings and limitations were extracted from the relevant studies and listed in a table.
Following a thorough examination and review of the literature, our analysis identified 12 articles for detailed evaluation. Of these, three provided the most compelling evidence concerning the use of portable handheld fundus cameras for the diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy in emergency settings. Ruan et al (2022) reported superior image quality and a sensitivity of 82.1% (95% CI: 72.1% to 92.2%) with a specificity of 97.4% (95% CI: 95.4% to 99.5%) for a handheld camera combined with artificial intelligence interpretation. Jin et al (2017) demonstrated high-quality images with 63% rated as excellent, showing a comparable efficacy to a traditional tabletop camera. Das et al (2022) found that Remidio and Pictor handheld cameras had high success rates and image quality, with sensitivities of 77.5% (95% CI: 65.9% to 89.0%) and 78.1% (95% CI: 66.6% to 89.5%), respectively, comparable to the Zeiss tabletop camera’s sensitivity of 84.9% (95% CI: 78.2% to 91.5%). The clinical bottom line is that the best available evidence supports the effectiveness of portable handheld fundus cameras for diagnosing diabetic retinopathy in emergency settings.
- management
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Contributors All authors have made substantial contributions to the conception and design of the work and have drafted the work. Each author has approved the submitted version. During the preparation of this work, the authors used Chat GPT in order to edit English. After using this tool, the authors edited and reviewed the content as needed.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Disclaimer Best Evidence Topic reports (BETs) summarise the evidence pertaining to particular clinical questions. They are not systematic reviews, but rather contain the best (highest level) evidence that can be practically obtained by busy practising clinicians. The search strategies used to find the best evidence are reported in detail in order to allow clinicians to update searches whenever necessary. Each BET is based on a clinical scenario and ends with a clinical bottom line which indicates, in the light of the evidence found, what the reporting clinician would do if faced with the same scenario again. This BET was first published on the BestBETs website at http://www.bestbets.org and has been reproduced with permission.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.