Cochrane · systematic review · CD012054
Interventions to increase attendance for diabetic retinopathy screening
Lawrenson, JG, Graham‐Rowe, E, Lorencatto, F, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2018 · Cochrane Library
Eyes and VisionAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
8
current version
GRADE rated
5
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 37.5%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 4 · 50%Moderate 1 · 12.5%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Any quality improvement intervention compared to usual care for diabetic retinopathy screening
Population: patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes eligible for diabetic retinopathy screening
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants attending screening (median Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 56 studies · 329164 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Ongoing adherence to screening Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Economic Outcomes Resources used (staff time, equipment, consumables) Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 13 studies · 85 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Staff/personnel costs; costs of treatment and care; cost of primary care; lost wages and lost productivity Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 85 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Incremental Cost effectiveness of interventions Any quality improvement intervention vs usual care | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 85 participants | Low Downgraded: inconsistency |
Stepped quality improvement intervention compared to intervention alone for diabetic retinopathy screening
Population: patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes eligible for diabetic retinopathy screening
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants attending screening (median Stepped quality improvement intervention vs intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 10 studies · 23715 participants | Moderate Downgraded: inconsistency |
Ongoing adherence to screening Stepped quality improvement intervention vs intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Economic outcomes Stepped quality improvement intervention vs intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |