Atsushi Kawaguchi1,2, Noha Sharafeldin1,3, Aishwarya Sundaram4, Sandy Campbell5, Matthew Tennant6, Christopher Rudnisky6, Ezekiel Weis6,7, Karim F Damji6. 1. 1 School of Public Health, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Canada . 2. 2 Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Canada . 3. 3 School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham , Birmingham, Alabama. 4. 4 Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University , Halifax, Canada . 5. 5 JW Scott Library, Health Sciences Library, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Canada . 6. 6 Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, University of Alberta , Edmonton, Canada . 7. 7 Division of Ophthalmology, Department of Surgery, University of Calgary , Calgary, Canada .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To synthesize high-quality evidence to compare traditional in-person screening and tele-ophthalmology screening. METHODS: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The intervention of interest was any type of tele-ophthalmology, including screening of diseases using remote devices. Studies involved patients receiving care from any trained provider via tele-ophthalmology, compared with those receiving equivalent face-to-face care. A search was executed on the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Global Health, EBSCO-CINAHL, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, OCLC Papers First, and Web of Science Core Collection. Six outcomes of care for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), or glaucoma were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven records were assessed at the full-text level; six RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Four studies involved participants with diabetes mellitus, and two studies examined choroidal neovascularization in AMD. Only data of detection of disease and participation in the screening program were used for the meta-analysis. Tele-ophthalmology had a 14% higher odds to detect disease than traditional examination; however, the result was not statistically significant (n = 2,012, odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-2.53, p = 0.74). Meta-analysis results show that odds of having DR screening in the tele-ophthalmology group was 13.15 (95% CI: 8.01-21.61; p < 0.001) compared to the traditional screening program. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that tele-ophthalmology for DR and age-related macular degeneration is as effective as in-person examination and potentially increases patient participation in screening.
BACKGROUND: To synthesize high-quality evidence to compare traditional in-person screening and tele-ophthalmology screening. METHODS: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The intervention of interest was any type of tele-ophthalmology, including screening of diseases using remote devices. Studies involved patients receiving care from any trained provider via tele-ophthalmology, compared with those receiving equivalent face-to-face care. A search was executed on the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, Global Health, EBSCO-CINAHL, SCOPUS, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, OCLC Papers First, and Web of Science Core Collection. Six outcomes of care for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), diabetic retinopathy (DR), or glaucoma were measured and analyzed. RESULTS: Two hundred thirty-seven records were assessed at the full-text level; six RCTs fulfilled inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Four studies involved participants with diabetes mellitus, and two studies examined choroidal neovascularization in AMD. Only data of detection of disease and participation in the screening program were used for the meta-analysis. Tele-ophthalmology had a 14% higher odds to detect disease than traditional examination; however, the result was not statistically significant (n = 2,012, odds ratio: 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52-2.53, p = 0.74). Meta-analysis results show that odds of having DR screening in the tele-ophthalmology group was 13.15 (95% CI: 8.01-21.61; p < 0.001) compared to the traditional screening program. CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that tele-ophthalmology for DR and age-related macular degeneration is as effective as in-person examination and potentially increases patient participation in screening.
Authors: Jerry Cavallerano; Mary G Lawrence; Ingrid Zimmer-Galler; Wendell Bauman; Sven Bursell; W Kelley Gardner; Mark Horton; Lloyd Hildebrand; Jay Federman; Lisa Carnahan; Peter Kuzmak; John M Peters; Adam Darkins; Jehanara Ahmed; Lloyd M Aiello; Lloyd P Aiello; Gary Buck; Ying Ling Cheng; Denise Cunningham; Eric Goodall; Ned Hope; Eugene Huang; Larry Hubbard; Mark Janczewski; J W L Lewis; Hiro Matsuzaki; Francis L McVeigh; Jordana Motzno; Diane Parker-Taillon; Robert Read; Peter Soliz; Bernard Szirth; Robert A Vigersky; Thomas Ward Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2004 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Emily Y Chew; Traci E Clemons; Susan B Bressler; Michael J Elman; Ronald P Danis; Amitha Domalpally; Jeffrey S Heier; Judy E Kim; Richard Garfinkel Journal: Ophthalmology Date: 2013-11-08 Impact factor: 12.079
Authors: Steven L Mansberger; Ken Gleitsmann; Stuart Gardiner; Christina Sheppler; Shaban Demirel; Kathleen Wooten; Thomas M Becker Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2013-10-08 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Emily Y Chew; Traci E Clemons; Susan B Bressler; Michael J Elman; Ronald P Danis; Amitha Domalpally; Jeffrey S Heier; Judy E Kim; Richard A Garfinkel Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Param Bhatter; Louie Cao; Austin Crochetiere; Sophia M Raefsky; Laura R Cuevas; Kaosoluchi Enendu; Emily H Frisch; Caleb Shumway; Charlotte Gore; Andrew W Browne Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 3.536