A Systematic Review of Current Teleophthalmology Services in New Zealand Compared to the Four Comparable Countries of the United Kingdom, Australia, United States of America (USA) and Canada

Figures & data

Table 1 Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA)

	PubMed	Embase	Web of Science	Cochrane Library	Google Scholar	Google
Identification	200	187	173	5	604	121,000
Screening
Repeats	2	75	162	5	420	342
Not country studied	13	23	6	0	53	0
Not-teleophthalmology	8	9	1	0	14	0
Case Study	0	2	0	0	0	0
Guidelines	2	0	0	0	0	0
Not in English/no information	0	1	1	0	4	0
Outside time period	0	0	0	0	1	0
Eligibility
Not a model of care	43	66	3	0	105	120,879
Included articles	132	11	0	0	12	0
Total discrete models of care	122	10	0	0	0	0
Total: 132 discrete models of care

Notes: Adapted from: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-269,W64. Copyright the authors. Creative Commons.¹³⁷

Table 2 New Zealand’s Discrete Teleophthalmology Services Evaluated Against Comparable Countries

	NZ	Australia	UK	USA	Canada
General Eye Care	1	5	8	6	1
School Screening	0	0	5	18	2
Emergency Eye Care	0	3	2	1	0
Disease-Specific Models of Care (MOC)	2	5	11	26	13
Artificial Intelligence (AI)	0	0	3	20	0

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264–269,W64. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar