Table 4.
Prospective studies examining diagnostic capacity of automated screening system for DR.
| Automated DR Grading System | Target DR Stages | Sensitivity | Specificity | PPV | NPV |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IDx-DR x2.1 (USA, n = 819) [18] |
Moderate NPDR or worse | 87.2% | 90.7% | - | - |
| Referral DR | 99.3% | 68.8% | 74.6% | 99.1% | |
| Sight threatening DR | 99.1% | 84.0% | 12% | 100% | |
| IDx-DR v2.0 (The Netherlands, n = 898) [19] |
Referral DR | 68.0% | 86.0% | 30.0% | 97.0% |
| Sight threatening DR | 62.0% | 95.0% | 14.0% | 99.0% | |
| SELENA+ (Zambia, n = 1574) [20] |
Referral DR | 92.3% | 89.0% | - | - |
| Sight threatening DR | 99.4% | - | - | - | |
| DME | 97.2% | - | - | - | |
| VoxelCloud Retina * (China, n = 15,805) [21] |
Referral DR | 83.3% | 92.5% | 61.8% | 97.4% |
| ARDA/Verily (Thailand, n = 7517) [22] |
Sight threatening DR | 91.3% | 96.3% | 79.2% | 95.5% |
| EyeArt v2.1 (UK, n = 30,405) [23] |
Referral DR | 95.7% | 54.0% | - | - |
DR: diabetic retinopathy; PPV: positive predictive value; NPV: negative predictive value. * non-mydriatic camera.