ArticleScientific reports2019
Comparison of different smartphone cameras to evaluate conjunctival hyperaemia in normal subjects.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Statistical Evaluation of Smartphone-Based Automated Grading System for Ocular Redness Associated with Dry Eye Disease and Implications for Clinical Trials.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Telemedicine for Cornea and External Disease: A Scoping Review of Imaging Devices.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Ocular redness - II: Progress in development of therapeutics for the management of conjunctival hyperemia.The ocular surface · 2021Review
- Smartphone-based imaging systems for medical applications: a critical review.Journal of biomedical optics · 2021Review
- Could telehealth help eye care practitioners adapt contact lens services during the COVID-19 pandemic?Contact lens & anterior eye : the journal of the British Contact Lens Association · 2020Article
- Improving the reliability of smartphone-based urine colorimetry using a colour card calibration method.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the significant advantages that smartphones' cameras can provide in teleophthalmology and artificial intelligence applications, their use as black-box systems for clinical data acquisition, without adequate information of the quality of photographs can compromise data accuracy. The aim of this study is to compare the objective and subjective quantification of conjunctival redness in images obtained with calibrated and non-calibrated cameras, in different lighting conditions and optical magnifications. One hundred ninety-two pictures of the eye were taken in 4 subjects using 3 smartphone cameras{Bq, Iphone, Nexus}, 2 lighting levels{high 815 lx, low 122 lx} and 2 magnification levels{high 10x, low 6x}. Images were duplicated: one set was white balanced and color corrected (calibrated) and the other was left as it was. Each image was subjective and objectively evaluated. There were no significant differences in subjective evaluation in any of the conditions whereas many statistically significant main effects and interaction effects were shown for all the objective metrics. The clinician's evaluation was not affected by different cameras, lighting conditions or optical magnifications, demonstrating the effectiveness of the human eye's color constancy properties. However, calibration of a smartphone's camera is essential when extracting objective data from images.
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.