Mapping Evidence on the Management of Diabetic Retinopathy Using Teleophthalmology to Complement Human Resources for Eye Health: A Scoping Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Diabetic Retinopathy is the leading cause of blindness in working adults, and remains a serious public health concern, globally. Whilst extensive research has been done in this area, the prevention of diabetic retinopathy is still very poor. Attributing factors in previous studies have included shortage of Human Resources for Eye Health in primary health centres, and a shortage of technology and skill in most countries. In some countries, teleophthalmology has been introduced to assist in the management of diabetic retinopathy by capacitating Eye Health professionals in primary health care settings since diabetes is diagnosed at this level. Where implemented, management of diabetic retinopathy through teleophthalmology has further contributed to reduction in preventable blindness while minimizing turnaround times as patients no longer have to wait for an Ophthalmologist appointment. The main objective of this scoping review is to map evidence on the use of teleophthalmology in the management of diabetic retinopathy globally. METHODS & ANALYSIS: Methodology will be guided by Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework. We will search for literature from the following EBSCO Host databases: MEDLINE, Health source: Nursing/Academic Edition, Health source – Consumer, CINAHL and Academic Search Complete. PubMed, Google Scholar and Science Direct will also be searched for studies. Where articles are not accessible online, the author will be contacted for the article, failing which the University of KwaZulu-Natal library services will be asked for assistance. The literature search will be done for the period from January 2014 to October 2019 where all studies in English will be accepted. After the initial search, title, abstract and full text screening will be conducted by two independent reviewers. To assess the methodological rigour of included studies, the Mixed Method Appraisal tool (MMAT) 2018 will be used. Study results will be presented using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) chart. DISCUSSION: It is anticipated that this scoping review will identify suitable literature on diabetic retinopathy and its management through teleophthalmology. The findings of this review will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and information summarized will be used to guide future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.079 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".