Cited by 2Retinal Diseases and TreatmentsRetinal Imaging and AnalysisOphthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies

Diabetic retinopathy treatment cascade and care continuum in the USA: a systematic review

Open access
Fu, Julia Jieyu, Applebaum, Serina S, Granados, Alvaro, Nwanyanwu, Kristen·2026·BMJ Open

Abstract

Objectives: To characterise engagement across the diabetic retinopathy (DR) care continuum in the USA using a cascade-of-care framework and identify gaps contributing to preventable vision loss. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: From September to November 2025, with an updated search in March to April 2026 using the same eligibility criteria, we systematically searched Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase supplemented by reviewing reference lists of relevant articles and opportunistic searches of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention publications. Eligibility criteria: We included English - language US-based cross-sectional, cohort and case–control studies and systematic reviews containing US-based data published between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2025 relevant to one of the defined DR cascade stages: (1) diagnosis of diabetes, (2) adherence to DR screening, (3) diagnosis of DR, (4) adherence to DR care and (5) DR-related blindness. We included systematic reviews only to inform DR-related blindness, where primary data were limited and excluded them from other stages to avoid double-counting. Exclusion criteria included studies not relevant to one of the defined DR cascade stages and editorial, perspective or commentary pieces. Data extraction and synthesis: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk-of-bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. We synthesised data narratively and organised via the DR treatment cascade framework. Results: Of 14 893 studies screened, 46 met the inclusion criteria. Cascade analysis revealed substantial losses in patient engagement at three stages: (1) only 15.5%–78.7% (median 59.4%, IQR 33.9%–74.0%) of individuals with diabetes obtain biennial DR screening; (2) a substantial 54.9%–88.5% (median 70.1%, IQR 62.5%–79.3%) of individuals with DR are unaware of their diagnosis; (3) only 30.9%–62.7% (median 52.0%, IQR 40.9%–59.1%) of individuals diagnosed with DR are initially linked to care and 55.3%–77.8% (median 70.3%, IQR 59.2%–77.7%) have a lapse in DR follow-up. Conclusions: This review identifies major gaps in the DR care continuum, particularly in diagnosis awareness, linkage to care and follow-up adherence. The cascade framework highlights key points of disengagement and provides a basis for prioritising future research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2026-117683

Cites

63 of 65 references verified1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Fu, J. J., Applebaum, S. S., Granados, A., & Nwanyanwu, K.
Affiliations
Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
Nwanyanwu, Kristen
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2026-06
Volume
16
Issue
6
Pages
e117683
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7164219225
Cited by
1
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 1
FWCI
1.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • James G. Hirsch Endowed Medical Student Research Fellowship
  • Research to Prevent Blindness
  • National Eye Institute (1 K23 EY030530-01)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Retinal Diseases and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Retinal Imaging and Analysis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Ophthalmology and Visual Impairment Studies
Keywords
diabetic retinopathy, continuum of care, cascade of care, diabetic retinopathy screening, screening adherence, diabetes diagnosis, retinopathy diagnosis, linkage to care, follow-up adherence, blindness prevention, patient engagement, United States, health service gaps, health equity, racial and ethnic disparities, geographic disparities, socioeconomic disparities, diabetes self-management education
MeSH terms
Blindness, Continuity of Patient Care, Diabetic Retinopathy, Humans, United States

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