Cited by 64Retinal Imaging and AnalysisRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Diagnostic Accuracy of IDX-DR for Detecting Diabetic Retinopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

KHAN, ZAID, GAIDHANE, ABHAY M, SINGH, MAHENDRA, GANESAN, SUBBULAKSHMI, KAUR, MANDEEP, SHARMA, GIRISH CHANDRA, RANI, POOJA, SHARMA, RSK +13 more·2025·American Journal of Ophthalmology

Abstract

Purpose Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision loss worldwide, making early detection critical to prevent blindness. IDX-DR, an FDA-approved autonomous artificial intelligence (AI) system, has emerged as an innovative solution to improve access to DR screening. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of IDX-DR in detecting diabetic retinopathy. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, identifying studies published through October 5, 2024. Studies involving adult patients with Type 1 or Type 2 diabetes and reporting diagnostic metrics such as sensitivity and specificity were included. The primary outcomes were pooled sensitivity and specificity of IDX-DR. A bivariate random-effects model was used for meta-analysis, and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves were generated to assess diagnostic performance. Statistical analyses were performed using MetaDisc software version 2.0. Results Thirteen studies involving 13,233 participants met the inclusion criteria. IDX-DR's pooled sensitivity was 0.95 (95% CI: 0.82-0.99), and its pooled specificity was 0.91 (95% CI: 0.84-0.95). The SROC curve confirmed IDX-DR's high diagnostic accuracy in detecting diabetic retinopathy across various clinical environments. The AUC value of 0.95 demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity, indicating a robust diagnost…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajo.2025.02.022

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Autonomous point-of-care, centralized AI or teleophthalmology, and hybrid AI-plus-human grading models cannot be universally ranked because each offers a different balance of immediacy, specialist oversight, infrastructure requirements, and workflow complexity.

    “Autonomous point-of-care, centralized AI or teleophthalmology, and hybrid AI-plus-human grading models should not be ranked universally, because each offers a different balance of immediacy, specialist oversight, infrastructure requirements, and workflow complexity.”
  • Product-specific evidence for IDx-DR suggests strong pooled accuracy, but performance is tied to the device, protocol, target disease definition, and intended-use population.

    “Product-specific evidence for IDx-DR also suggests strong pooled accuracy, but performance is tied to the device, protocol, target disease definition, and intended-use population (14).”
  • Autonomous AI systems can provide same-visit results and reduce dependence on asynchronous grading; centralized AI/teleophthalmology models can support multisite quality assurance and specialist oversight; hybrid AI-plus-human models retain human review for selected or uncertain cases.

    “Autonomous systems can provide same-visit results and reduce dependence on asynchronous grading, whereas centralized models may support multisite quality assurance and specialist oversight; hybrid models retain human review for selected or uncertain cases (8,10,11,14,17,21).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
KHAN, Z., GAIDHANE, A. M., SINGH, M., GANESAN, S., KAUR, M., SHARMA, G. C., RANI, P., SHARMA, R., THAPLIYAL, S., KUSHWAHA, M., KUMAR, H., AGARWAL, R. K., SHABIL, M., VERMA, L., SIDHU, A., MANAN, N. B. A., BUSHI, G., MEHTA, R., SAH, S., SATAPATHY, P., & SAMAL, S. K.
Affiliations
  • Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research (IN)
  • Saveetha University (IN)
  • Jain University (IN)
  • Vivekananda Global University (IN)
  • NIMS University (IN)
  • Uttaranchal University (IN)
  • Graphic Era University (IN)
  • Noida Institute of Engineering and Technology Pharmacy Institute (IN)
  • Chitkara University (IN)
  • Chitkara University, Himachal Pradesh (IN)
  • Lovely Professional University (IN)
  • Manav Rachna International Institute of Research and Studies (IN)
  • Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Hospital and Research Centre (IN)
  • Chandigarh University (IN)
  • Karolinska Institutet (SE)
Corresponding author
SAMAL, SHAILESH KUMAR
Venue
American Journal of Ophthalmology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-05
Volume
273
Pages
192-204
ISSN
0002-9394 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4407792609
Cited by
49
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 22
FWCI
7.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy, artificial intelligence, automated retinal analysis, diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity and specificity, diabetic retinopathy screening, type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, ROC Curve, 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