ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2019
Undermining a common language: smartphone applications for eye emergencies.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Home vision monitoring in patients with maculopathy: current and future options for digital technologies.Eye (London, England) · 2023Review
- An intelligent decision support system for acute postoperative endophthalmitis: design, development and evaluation of a smartphone application.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Smartphone applications in ophthalmology: A quantitative analysis.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Review
- Saving space: Comparing mini - logMAR with standard logMAR visual acuity.Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEmergency room physicians are frequently called upon to assess eye injuries and vision problems in the absence of specialized ophthalmologic equipment. Technological applications that can be used on mobile devices are only now becoming available.
objectiveTo review the literature on the evidence of clinical effectiveness of smartphone applications for visual acuity assessment marketed by two providers (Google Play and iTunes).
methodsThe websites of two mobile technology vendors (iTunes and Google Play) in Canada and Ireland were searched on three separate occasions using the terms "eye", "ocular", "ophthalmology", "optometry", "vision", and "visual assessment" to determine what applications were currently available. Four medical databases (Cochrane, Embase, PubMed, Medline) were subsequently searched with the same terms AND mobile OR smart phone for papers in English published in years 2010-2017.
resultsA total of 5,024 Canadian and 2,571 Irish applications were initially identified. After screening, 44 were retained. Twelve relevant articles were identified from the health literature. After screening, only one validation study referred to one of our identified applications, and this one only partially validated the application as being useful for clinical purposes.
conclusionMobile device applications in their current state are not suitable for emergency room ophthalmologic assessment, because systematic validation is lacking.
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.