Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32558656›Full record

ArticleJMIR mHealth and uHealth2020

Smartphone-Guided Algorithms for Use by Community Volunteers to Screen and Refer People With Eye Problems in Trans Nzoia County, Kenya: Development and Validation Study.

Hillary Rono, Andrew Bastawrous, David Macleod, Cosmas Bunywera, Ronald Mamboleo, Emmanuel Wanjala, Matthew Burton

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Deep learning-empowered low-cost portable automated refraction system: A solution to the inadequate effective correction rate of refractive errors in resource-limited areas.Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists) · 2025
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hillary RonoClinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9843-4186
Andrew BastawrousClinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8179-556X
David MacleodMedical Research Council Tropical Epidemiology Group, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2371-5709
Cosmas BunyweraKitale County and Referral Hospital, Kitale, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-3208-2720
Ronald MamboleoKitale County and Referral Hospital, Kitale, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-8941-2428
Emmanuel WanjalaKitale County and Referral Hospital, Kitale, Kenya.ORCID 0000-0002-2580-6081
Matthew BurtonClinical Research Department, International Centre for Eye Health, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1872-9169
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine · GBLondon Vision Clinic · GB

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 207472/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe provision of eye care services is currently insufficient to meet the requirements of eye care. Many people remain unnecessarily visually impaired or at risk of becoming so because of treatable or preventable eye conditions. A lack of access and awareness of services is, in large part, a key barrier to handle this unmet need.

objectiveThis study aimed to assess whether utilizing novel smartphone-based clinical algorithms can task-shift eye screening to community volunteers (CVs) to accurately identify and refer patients to primary eye care services. In particular, we developed the Peek Community Screening app and assessed its validity in making referral decisions for patients with eye problems.

methodsWe developed a smartphone-based clinical algorithm (the Peek Community Screening app) using age, distance vision, near vision, and pain as referral criteria. We then compared CVs' referral decisions using this app with those made by an experienced ophthalmic clinical officer (OCO), which was the reference standard. The same participants were assessed by a trained CV using the app and by an OCO using standard outreach equipment. The outcome was the proportion of all decisions that were correct when compared with that of the OCO.

resultsThe required sensitivity and specificity for the Peek Community Screening app were achieved after seven iterations. In the seventh iteration, the OCO identified referable eye problems in 65.9% (378/574) of the participants. CVs correctly identified 344 of 378 (sensitivity 91.0%; 95% CI 87.7%-93.7%) of the cases and correctly identified 153 of 196 (specificity 78.1%; 95% CI 71.6%-83.6%) cases as not having a referable eye problem. The positive predictive value was 88.9% (95% CI 85.3%-91.8%), and the negative predictive value was 81.8% (95% CI 75.5%-87.1%).

conclusionsDevelopment of such an algorithm is feasible; however, it requires considerable effort and resources. CVs can accurately use the Peek Community Screening app to identify and refer people with eye problems. An iterative design process is necessary to ensure validity in the local context.

Indexed as

SmartphoneText MessagingAdolescentAdultAgedAlgorithmsFemaleHumansKenyaMaleMiddle AgedVolunteersYoung AdultalgorithmsmHealthmobile phonescreeningsensitivityspecificityvisual impairment

Identifiers

PMID32558656
PMCPMC7334755
OpenAlexW2994957823

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.