ArticleDer Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft2013
[Fundus screening by medical technicians].
Article in Der Ophthalmologe : Zeitschrift der Deutschen Ophthalmologischen Gesellschaft, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance analysis of pretrained convolutional neural network models for ophthalmological disease classification.Arquivos brasileiros de oftalmologia · 2023Article
- Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Ratio Is Improved When Using a Digital, Nonmydriatic Fundus Camera Onsite in a Diabetes Outpatient Clinic.Journal of diabetes research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ocular fundus photography allows detection of both ocular and systemic diseases. This study investigated the efficacy of a broad screening in a department of internal medicine using nonmydriatic digital fundus photography. For 8 weeks a medical technician was trained in using the camera as well as interpreting the photographs. The medical technician and an ophthalmologist evaluated the fundus photographs separately by using a self-developed questionnaire. The fundus camera was user-friendly and after several weeks of adjustment and practical application the medical technician was able to detect the majority of pathological fundus photographs. Out of 218 patients examined 148 (68%) were identified as pathological by the medical technician and 163 (75%) by the ophthalmologist (p = 0.0003). The medical technician missed 15 (7%) patients. Furthermore the diagnoses made by the medical technician were faulty. In summary an ophthalmological screening by a medical technician is feasible but the diagnosis still remains the responsibility of ophthalmologists. Such a compromise could facilitate the examination of a large number of patients and disclose previously unrecognized diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.