Cited by 20Retinal Imaging and AnalysisRetinal Diseases and TreatmentsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone-based artificial intelligence systems for detecting diabetic retinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Hasan, S. Umar, Siddiqui, M.A. Rehman·2023·Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice

Abstract

Aims Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is a major cause of blindness globally, early detection is critical to prevent vision loss. Traditional screening that, rely on human experts are, however, costly, and time-consuming. The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone-based artificial intelligence(AI) systems for DR detection. Methods Literature review was conducted on MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane from inception to December 2022. We included diagnostic test accuracy studies evaluating the use of smartphone-based AI algorithms for DR screening in patients with diabetes, with expert human grader as the reference standard. Random-effects model was used to pool sensitivity and specificity. Any DR(ADR) and referable DR(RDR) were analyzed separately. Results Out of 968 identified articles, six diagnostic test accuracy studies met our inclusion criteria, comprising 3,931 patients. Four of these studies used the Medios AI algorithm. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of ADR were 88 % and 91.5 % respectively and for diagnosis of RDR were 98.2 % and 81.2 % respectively. The overall risk of bias across the studies was low. Conclusions Smartphone-based AI algorithms show high diagnostic accuracy for detecting DR. However, more high-quality comparative studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness in real-world clinical settings.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110943

Cites

5 of 5 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hasan, S. U., & Siddiqui, M. A. R.
Affiliations
Aga Khan University Hospital (PK)
Corresponding author
Siddiqui, M.A. Rehman
Venue
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2023-11
Volume
205
Pages
110943
ISSN
0168-8227 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4387358833
Cited by
20
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6
FWCI
0.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice (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, automated retinal analysis, diagnostic accuracy, referable diabetic retinopathy, diabetic retinopathy screening, sensitivity and specificity
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity

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