ArticleEye (London, England)2021
Ophthalmic image acquired by ophthalmologists and by allied health personnel as part of a telemedicine strategy: a comparative study of image quality.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- COVID 19 repercussions in ophthalmology: a narrative review.Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicinaPooled it
- Eye care interventions that reduce access inequities for women, rural residents and older people in low-middle-income countries: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Current Burden and Future Solutions for Preoperative Cataract-Refractive Evaluation Diagnostic Devices: A Modified Delphi Study.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2023Article
- Training of nonophthalmologists in diabetic retinopathy screening.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
17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluates the quality of ophthalmic images acquired by a nurse technician trained in teleophthalmology as compared with images acquired by an ophthalmologist, in order to provide a better understanding of the workforce necessary to operate remote care programs.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed on 2044 images obtained from 118 participants of the TeleOftalmo project, in Brazil. Fundus and slit-lamp photography were performed on site by an ophthalmologist and by a nurse technician under the supervision of a remote ophthalmologist. Image quality was then evaluated by masked ophthalmologists. Proportion of suitable images in each group was compared.
resultsThe proportion of concordant classification regarding quality was 94.8%, with a corrected kappa agreement of 0.94. When analyzing each type of photo separately, there was no significant difference in the proportion of suitable images between on-site ophthalmologist and nurse technician with remote ophthalmologist assistance for the following: slit-lamp views of the anterior segment and anterior chamber periphery, and fundus photographs centered on the macula and on the optic disc (P = 0.825, P = 0.997, P = 0.194, and P = 0.449, respectively). For slit-lamp views of the lens, the proportion of suitable images was higher among those obtained by an ophthalmologist (99.6%) than by a technician (93.8%, P < 0.01).
conclusionsOphthalmic photographs acquired by a trained technician consistently achieved >90% adequacy for remote reading. Compared with ophthalmologist-acquired photos, the proportion of images deemed suitable achieved a high overall agreement. These findings provide favorable evidence of the adequacy of teleophthalmological imaging by nurse technicians.
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.