Accuracy and Reliability of Teleophthalmology for Diagnosing Diabetic Retinopathy and Macular Edema: A Review of the Literature
Abstract
Using teleophthalmology for the delivery of routine eye care for patients with diabetes mellitus is becoming an increasingly common practice. Paramount in the consideration of any new diagnostic test is an analysis of its diagnostic accuracy and reliability and how that compares with conventional care. This review summarizes existing data on the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of teleophthalmology and conventional clinic-based eye care for detecting diabetic retinopathy and diabetes mellitus. The sensitivity of ophthalmoscopy for detecting diabetic retinopathy performed by eye care clinicians has varied widely, with point estimates ranging from 0% to 96%. Alternatively, specificity has been universally high. The sensitivity of teleophthalmology for detecting diabetic retinopathy has been shown to be comparable, if not better, than clinic-based examinations. Sensitivity values have ranged from 50% to 93%. The specificity of teleophthalmology, like clinic-based examinations, has been consistently high. High levels of diagnostic reliability, analyzed by both simple agreement and kappa values, have been found between ophthalmoscopy and teleophthalmology for detecting and classifying diabetic retinopathy. Evaluating the accuracy of macular edema detection requires the use of dual gold standards, the clinical examination using slit-lamp biomicroscopy and stereoscopic photography. Teleophthalmology, compared with both gold standards, has, overall, been a highly sensitive and specific test. Reliability studies that compared the two gold standards with one another have found moderate to substantial levels of agreement. Based on existing data, teleophthalmology appears to be an accurate and reliable test for detecting diabetic retinopathy and macular edema.
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 clinical efficacy of teleophthalmology for diabetic retinopathy has been established.
“Its clinical efficacy has been established [52] and more recently, analysis of its economic viability has been undertaken [5354].”
From Recent directions in telemedicine: Review of trends in research and practice (2015) · cites this paper as [52]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 60
- Authors
- Whited, J. D.
- Affiliations
- Duke University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Whited, John D.
- Venue
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-02
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 102-111
- ISSN
- 1520-9156 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-8593
- OpenAlex
- W2026335330
- Cited by
- 60
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 2.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Ophthalmology and Visual Health Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
- Keywords
- teleophthalmology, diabetic retinopathy, diabetic macular edema, diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic reliability, fundus examination, slit lamp examination, stereoscopic photography, sensitivity and specificity, diabetes mellitus, telemedicine
- MeSH terms
- Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results, Telemedicine
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