Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 May 7:12:1519768.
doi: 10.3389/fmed.2025.1519768. eCollection 2025.

Artificial intelligence versus manual screening for the detection of diabetic retinopathy: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis

Hasan Nawaz Tahir  1 , Naseer Ullah  2 , Mursala Tahir  3 , Inbaraj Susai Domnic  4 , Ramaprabha Prabhakar  5 , Semmal Syed Meerasa  5 , Ahmed Ibrahim AbdElneam  6   7 , Shahnawaz Tahir  8 , Yousaf Ali  1
Affiliations

Artificial intelligence versus manual screening for the detection of diabetic retinopathy: a comparative systematic review and meta-analysis

Hasan Nawaz Tahir et al. Front Med (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Background: Diabetic retinopathy is one of the leading causes of blindness globally, among individuals with diabetes mellitus. Early detection through screening can help in preventing disease progression. In recent advancements artificial Intelligence assisted screening has emerged as an alternative to traditional manual screening methods. This diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) review aims to compare the sensitivity and specificity of AI versus manual screening for detecting diabetic retinopathy, focusing on both dilated and un-dilated eyes.

Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted for comparison of AI vs. manual screening of diabetic retinopathy using 25 observational (cross sectional, validation and cohort) studies with total images of 613,690 used for screening published between January 2015 and December 2024. Outcomes of the study was sensitivity, and specificity. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool for validation studies, the AXIS tool for cross-sectional studies, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohort studies.

Results: The results of this meta-analysis showed that for un-dilated eyes, AI screening showed pooled sensitivity of 0.90 [95% CI: 0.85-0.94] and pooled specificity of 0.94 [95% CI: 0.91-0.96] while manual screening shows pooled sensitivity of 0.79 [95% CI: 0.60-0.91] and pooled specificity of 0.99 [95% CI: 0.98-0.99]. For dilated eyes the pooled sensitivity of AI screening is 0.95 [95% CI: 0.91-0.97] and pooled specificity is 0.87 [95% CI: 0.79-0.92], while manual screening sensitivity is 0.90 [95% CI: 0.87-0.92] and specificity is 0.99 [95% CI: 0.99-1.00]. These data show comparable sensitivities and specificities of AI and manual screening, with AI performing better in sensitivity.

Conclusion: AI-assisted screening for diabetic retinopathy shows comparable sensitivity and specificity compared to manual screening. These results suggest that AI can be a reliable alternative in clinical settings, with increased early detection rates and reducing the burden on ophthalmologists. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/home, CRD42024596611.

Keywords: artificial intelligence; automated detection; deep learning; diabetic retinopathy; manual screening; screening.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA flow diagram for included studies.
Figure 2
Figure 2
SROC plot for un-dilated eyes screening.
Figure 3
Figure 3
SROC plot for dilated eyes screening.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Specificity forest plot for un-dilated eyes.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Sensitivity forest plot for un-dilated eyes.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Specificity forest plot for dilated eyes.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Sensitivity forest plot for dilated eyes.
Figure 8
Figure 8
Risk of bias assessment traffic light plot for QUADAS-2 tool.
Figure 9
Figure 9
Risk of bias assessment summary plot for QUADAS-2 tool.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. World Health Organization . Global report on diabetes. Geneva: World Health Organization; (2016).
    1. Teo ZL, Tham YC, Yu M, Chee ML, Rim TH, Cheung N, et al. . Global prevalence of diabetic retinopathy and projection of burden through 2045: systematic review and meta-analysis. Ophthalmology. (2021) 128:1580–91. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2021.04.027, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization . (2023) Blindness and visual impairment fact sheet. Available online at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/blindness-and-visual-im...
    1. Piyasena M, Murthy GVS, Yip JLY, Gilbert C, Zuurmond M, Peto T, et al. . Systematic review on barriers and enablers for access to diabetic retinopathy screening services in different income settings. PLoS One. (2019) 14:e0198979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0198979, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hasan SU, Siddiqui MAR. Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone-based artificial intelligence systems for detecting diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. (2023) 205:110943. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2023.110943, PMID: - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources