Diagnostic Accuracy of Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in Real-World Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Abstract
Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI)-based automated diabetic retinopathy (DR) screening in real-world settings. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of relevant literature from January 2012 to August 2022 using databases including PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. The quality of studies was evaluated using Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) checklist. We calculated pooled accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) as summary measures. The study protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO - CRD42022367034). Results We included 34 studies which utilized AI algorithms for diagnosing DR based on real-world fundus images. Quality assessment of these studies indicated a low risk of bias and low applicability concern. Among gradable images, the overall pooled accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and DOR were 81%, 94% (95% CI: 92.0-96.0), 89% (95% CI: 85.0-92.0) and 128 (95% CI: 80-204) respectively. Sub-group analysis showed that, when acceptable quality imaging could be obtained, non-mydriatic fundus images had a better DOR of 143 (95% CI: 82-251) and studies using 2 field images had a better DOR of 161 (95% CI 74-347). Our meta-regression analysis revealed a statistically significant association between DOR and variables such as the income status, and the type of fundus camera. Conclusi…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The diagnostic evidence base for AI-enabled DR screening is now substantial.
“The diagnostic evidence base for AI-enabled DR screening is now substantial.”
From From validation to public health impact: implementing equitable AI-enabled diabetic retinopathy screening (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
Pooled sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 89% among gradable images for AI DR screening, with income level and fundus camera type explaining part of the heterogeneity.
“Joseph and colleagues synthesized 34 real-world studies and reported pooled sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 89% among gradable images, with income level and fundus camera type explaining part of the heterogeneity (12).”
From From validation to public health impact: implementing equitable AI-enabled diabetic retinopathy screening (2026) · cites this paper as [12]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 104 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- JOSEPH, S., SELVARAJ, J., MANI, I., KUMARAGURUPARI, T., SHANG, X., MUDGIL, P., RAVILLA, T., & HE, M.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Aravind Eye Hospital (IN)
- Charles Sturt University (AU)
- Corresponding author
- JOSEPH, SANIL
- ORCID
- Venue
- American Journal of Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2024-07
- Volume
- 263
- Pages
- 214-230
- ISSN
- 0002-9394 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4392349047
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 104
- Citations by year
- 2026: 27 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 7
- FWCI
- 4.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- American Journal of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
- Keywords
- diabetic retinopathy, automated screening, artificial intelligence, fundus images, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, fundus camera, real-world environments
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, Mass Screening, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review