Cited by 55Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal Imaging and AnalysisDiabetes Management and Research

Adherence to the American Diabetes Association retinal screening guidelines for population with diabetes in the United States

An, JaeJin, Niu, Fang, Turpcu, Adam, Rajput, Yamina, Cheetham, T Craig·2018·Ophthalmic Epidemiology

Abstract

Purpose (1) To assess long-term adherence to American Diabetes Association guideline-recommended retinal screening among population with diabetes in the United States. (2) To determine factors associated with long-term adherence to routine eye screening exams. Methods A retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with diabetes identified from January 2009 to December 2010. Patients were followed until disenrollment, death, or study end date (December 2013). A patient was defined as adherent when having at least one exam in each 12-month period if there was evidence of retinopathy, or at least one exam in each 24-month period if there was no evidence of retinopathy. Multivariate logistic regressions were used to investigate patient demographics and other baseline characteristics associated with adherence to guidelines. Results A total of 204,073 patients were identified; the mean age (SD) was 61 (13) years and 48% were female. Overall, 71.1% were adherent to the retinal screening guidelines during a median of 4.8 years of follow-up including 27.7% who received an eye exam every year. Patient socioeconomic status (younger age, black race, lower income/education), less comorbidity, insulin use, higher specialist copayment plans, and proxies for poor patient behavior (lower adherence to the oral hypoglycemic agents, less diabetes education, hemoglobin A1C >9%) were associated with nonadherence to routine eye screening exams. Conclusion During nearly 5 years of foll…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09286586.2018.1424344

Cites

27 of 27 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

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
An, J., Niu, F., Turpcu, A., Rajput, Y., & Cheetham, T. C.
Affiliations
  • Western University of Health Sciences (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Genentech (US)
Corresponding author
An, JaeJin
Venue
Ophthalmic Epidemiology
Published
2018-01-15
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
257-265
ISSN
  • 0928-6586 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5086
OpenAlex
W2784105924
Cited by
55
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5
FWCI
4.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Ophthalmic Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Genentech (C4-175855)
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, retinal screening, guideline adherence, American Diabetes Association guidelines, diabetes mellitus, eye examination, socioeconomic status, health disparities, comorbidities, insulin use, oral antidiabetic drugs, diabetes education, HbA1c, barriers to screening
MeSH terms
Diabetes Mellitus, Diabetic Retinopathy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Societies, Medical, Time Factors, United States, Incidence, Prevalence, Guideline Adherence

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