The Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in Australian Adults with Self-Reported Diabetes
Abstract
Purpose To determine the prevalence of and factors associated with diabetic retinopathy (DR) among non-Indigenous and Indigenous Australian adults with self-reported diabetes. Design Population-based cross-sectional study. Participants Non-Indigenous Australians (50-98 years of age) and Indigenous Australians (40-92 years of age) with known diabetes. Methods Diabetes was determined based on self-report of previous diagnosis of the disease. Nonmydriatic fundus photographs were obtained of each eye and graded according to the modified Airlie House classification system. Main outcome measures Any DR, vision-threatening DR (VTDR), treatment coverage rates (proportion of participants with proliferative DR [PDR], clinically significant macular edema [CSME], or both who had evidence of retinal scatter and focal laser treatment). Results Four hundred thirty-one non-Indigenous Australians (13.9%) and 645 Indigenous Australians (37.1%) self-reported diabetes, of whom 93% (1004/1076) had retinal images that were gradable for DR. The sampling weight-adjusted prevalence of any DR and VTDR among non-Indigenous adults with self-reported diabetes was 28.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 22.6-35.3) and 4.5% (95% CI, 2.6-7.9), respectively. Among adults 40 years of age and older, the sampling weight-adjusted prevalence of any DR and VTDR was 39.4% (95% CI, 33.1-46.1) and 9.5% (95% CI, 6.8-13.1), respectively. Longer diabetes duration was associated significantly with VTDR in the Indigenous Aus…
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 study simulated prevalences of referable DR of 4%, 8%, and 12% to reflect global variations.
“To accommodate different DR screening settings, we simulated at WTP levels ranging from US$ 0 to 30,828, and different prevalences of referable DR (4%, 8%, and 12%) to reflect the global variations.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [56]
The 8% prevalence of referable DR mirrors the real-world scenario within the Lifeline Express Program, while the 4% prevalence was chosen based on data from high-income countries and the 12% prevalence was based on data from other LMICs.
“The 8% prevalence mirrors the real-world scenario within the Lifeline Express Program, while the lower prevalence of 4% was chosen based on data from high-income countries55,56, and the higher prevalence of 12% was based on data from other LMICs57–59.”
From Economic evaluation for medical artificial intelligence: accuracy vs. cost-effectiveness in a diabetic retinopathy screening case (2024) · cites this paper as [56]
Cites
Prevalence of Diabetic Retinopathy in the United States, 2005-2008
Zhang, X., Saaddine, J. B., Chou, C.-F., Cotch, M. F., Cheng, Y. J., Geiss, L. S., Gregg, E. W., Albright, A. L., Klein, B. E. K., & Klein, R. (2010) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1111 · Cited by 1,196 · see citing works
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group (2007) · Diabetic Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1464-5491.2007.02043.x · Cited by 363 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Wang, Y., Liu, C., Hu, W., Luo, L., Shi, D., Zhang, J., Yin, Q., Zhang, L., Han, X., & He, M. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01032-9 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
- Authors
- Keel, S., Xie, J., Foreman, J., van Wijngaarden, P., Taylor, H. R., & Dirani, M.
- Affiliations
- The Royal Victorian Eye & Ear Hospital (AU)
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Keel, Stuart
- Venue
- Ophthalmology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-07
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 977-984
- ISSN
- 0161-6420 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2598450878
- Cited by
- 73
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 1
- FWCI
- 6.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Ophthalmology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diabetes Management and Research
- Keywords
- diabetic retinopathy, prevalence, vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy, Indigenous Australians, non-Indigenous Australians, diabetes duration, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, clinically significant macular edema, retinal laser treatment, treatment coverage, vision loss, risk factors, fundus photography grading, Australia, Indigenous health disparities, older adults, self-reported diabetes
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cross-Sectional Studies, Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Retinopathy, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Risk Factors, Prevalence, Population Groups, Self Report
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