Cited by 60Retinal Imaging and AnalysisOphthalmology and Visual Health ResearchRetinal Diseases and Treatments

Accuracy and Reliability of Teleophthalmology for Diagnosing Diabetic Retinopathy and Macular Edema: A Review of the Literature

Whited, John D.·2006·Diabetes Technology & Therapeutics

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

Crossref · 10.1089/dia.2006.8.102

Cites

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?

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
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