Telemedicine for detecting diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To determine the diagnostic accuracy of telemedicine in various clinical levels of diabetic retinopathy (DR) and diabetic macular oedema (DME). Methods PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were searched for telemedicine and DR. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated using the Quality Assessment for Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Measures of sensitivity, specificity and other variables were pooled using a random effects model. Summary receiver operating characteristic curves were used to estimate overall test performance. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were used to identify sources of heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated using Stata V. 12.0. Results Twenty articles involving 1960 participants were included. Pooled sensitivity of telemedicine exceeded 80% in detecting the absence of DR, low-or high-risk proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), it exceeded 70% in detecting mild or moderate non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy (NPDR), DME and clinically significant macular oedema (CSME) and was 53% (95% CI 45% to 62%) in detecting severe NPDR. Pooled specificity of telemedicine exceeded 90%, except in the detection of mild NPDR which reached 89% (95% CI 88% to 91%). Diagnostic accuracy was higher with digital images obtained through mydriasis than through non-mydriasis, and was highest when a wide angle (100-200 degrees) was used compared with a narrower angle (45-60 degrees, 30 degrees or 35 degrees) in detecting the absence of DR and the presence of mild NPDR. No potential publication bias was detected. Conclusions The diagnostic accuracy of telemedicine using digital imaging in DR is overall high. It can be used widely for DR screening. Telemedicine based on the digital imaging technique that combines mydriasis with a wide angle field (100-200 degrees) is the best choice in detecting the absence of DR and the presence of mild NPDR.