ArticleBMJ innovations2018
Comparative evaluation of a novel solar powered low-cost ophthalmoscope (Arclight) by eye healthcare workers in Malawi.
Article in BMJ innovations, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Universal newborn eye screening: a systematic review of the literature and review of international guidelines.Journal of global health · 2022Pooled it
- Does access to a portable ophthalmoscope improve skill acquisition in direct ophthalmoscopy? A method comparison study in undergraduate medical education.BMC medical education · 2019Trial
- Structured simulation-based training with frugal ophthalmic instruments rapidly equips non-ophthalmologists to identify malarial retinopathy in simulation eyes: an audit of a training course.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The Comparison Between Arclight Loupe and Handheld Slit Lamp in Anterior Segment Eye Disease Diagnosis.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- A new technique for teaching the fundal reflex test and fundoscopy: 'screen casting' with the Arclight direct ophthalmoscope attached to the camera of a mobile phone.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- The Arclight and how to use it.Community eye health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study compared a novel low-cost solar powered direct ophthalmoscope called the Arclight with a traditional direct ophthalmoscope (TDO). After appropriate training, 25 Malawian eye healthcare workers were asked to examine 12 retinal images placed in a teaching manikin head with both the Arclight ophthalmoscope and a traditional direct ophthalmoscope (Keeler Professional V.2.8). Participants were scored on their ability to identify clinical signs, to make a diagnosis and how long they took to make a diagnosis. They were also asked to score each ophthalmoscope for 'ease of use'. Statistically significant differences were found in favour of the Arclight in the number of clinical signs identified, correct diagnoses made and ease of use. The ophthalmoscopes were equally effective as a screening tool for diabetic retinopathy, and there was no statistically difference in time to diagnosis. The authors conclude that the Arclight offers an easy to use, low cost alternative to the traditional direct ophthalmoscope to meet the demands for screening and diagnosis of visually impairing eye disorders in low-income and middle-income countries.
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.