Skip to main content

Table 3 Summary estimates of diagnostic test accuracy by field strategy and variations by reference standard

From: Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of detection of any level of diabetic retinopathy using digital retinal imaging

Imaging strategy Non-mydriatic Mydriatic
Reference—7F ETDRSb Reference—DF slit lamp examination Reference—7F ETDRS Reference—DF slit lamp examination
Sensitivity
(95% CI)
Specificity
(95% CI)
Sensitivity
(95% CI)
Specificity (95% CI) Sensitivity (95% CI) Specificity (95% CI) Sensitivity (95% CI) Specificity (95% CI)
Overall estimate 87% 96% 86% 91% 86% 96% 86% 87%
(85–89%)a (8) (95–97) (6) (85–88%) (10) (91–92%) (10) (84–89%) (5) (95–97%) (5) (85–87%) (12) (86–88%) (12)
Field strategy 1F
1 field
79% 96% 78% 89% 77% 96% 80% 91%
(74–83%) (2) (95–98%) (2) (75–80%) (6) (88–90%) (6) (70–82%) (1) (95–99%) (1) (78–83%) (6) (90–92%) (5)
2F
2 field
90% 96% 92% 93% 83% 95% 86% 75%
(86–93%) (2) (94–98%) (2) (90–93%) (2) (92–94%) (2) (80–87%) (2) (93–97%) (2) (84–88%) (4) (74–77%) (4)
> 2F
> 2 field
88% 95% 90% 94% 91% 93% 93% 95%
(85–91%) (4) (93–97%) (4) (83–96%) (2) (92–96%) (2) (88–94%) (2) (90–96%) (2) (90–95%) (2) (93–97%) (2)
  1. DF dilated fundoscopy, CI confidence intervals
  2. aNumber of studies included in each estimate in meta
  3. b7F ETDRS—early treatment diabetic retinopathy study seven-field strategy