Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32999968›Full record

ArticleThe British and Irish orthoptic journal2019

Ophthalmologists on Smartphones: Image-Based Teleconsultation.

Amit Mohan, Navjot Kaur, Vinod Sharma, Pradhnya Sen, Elesh Jain, Manju Gajraj

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British and Irish orthoptic journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Amit MohanDepartment of pediatric ophthalmology and strabismus, Sadguru netra chikitsalaya and postgraduate institute of ophthalmology, Jankikund, Chitrakoot (MP), IN.ORCID 0000-0002-7061-3270
Navjot KaurGlobal hospital institute of ophthalmology, Abu Road (Rajasthan), IN.
Vinod SharmaGlobal hospital institute of ophthalmology, Abu Road (Rajasthan), IN.
Pradhnya SenSadguru Netra chikitsalya and postgraduate institute of ophthalmology, Jankikund, Chitrakoot, IN.
Elesh JainSadguru Netra chikitsalya and postgraduate institute of ophthalmology, Jankikund, Chitrakoot, IN.
Manju GajrajDepartment of ophthalmology, SMS Medical College, Jaipur, (Rajasthan), IN.
Rajasthan University of Health Sciences · INSasaki Institute · JPMahatma Gandhi Chitrakoot Gramodaya Vishwavidyalaya · INSMS Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTeleophthalmology has the potential to facilitate wider access to expert advice. It includes viewing of ophthalmic images by experts either on handheld devices like smartphones/tablets or office devices such as computer screens. However, to ensure rapid feedback, the turnaround time of any consultation must be kept to a minimum which requires use of handheld user-friendly devices. The purpose of this study was to assess whether images of different eye ailments viewed on smartphones and tablets are of comparable subjective quality as those viewed on a computer screen.

methodsThis was a prospective study comparing the subjective quality of images on a smartphone, tablet and computer screen. Thirty images were analysed - 10 of extraocular morphology, 10 of the anterior segment pathology and 10 of retinal diseases. Ten ophthalmologists participated and were instructed to rate the overall quality of each image on a 7-point Likert scale (terrible-1, poor-2, average-3, fair-4, good-5, very good-6, excellent-7).

resultsOverall smartphones were found to have higher ratings of subjective image quality (5.9 ± 0.48) than images displayed on tablets (5.13 ± 0.51) and computers (5.0 ± 0.37). The images were rated 'good' or 'very good' in all (100%) of the smartphone images. Fundus images and extraocular images were rated higher than anterior segment images on the smartphone. When comparing the two handheld devices with computers, both smartphones and tablets had similar image quality (p > 0.05, not significant) to computer images. However, for extraocular diseases, smartphone (6.1 ± 0.32) had significantly better image quality and images were easier to interpret compared to images on the computer (p < 0.05).Smartphones were rated 'very good' in 88.33% cases. All consultants (n = 10) were comfortable with the use of smartphone images and were already using it for teleconsultation at least three times in a month. Vision technicians reported minimum delay in getting advice when sending the images on mobile application to expert ophthalmologists.

conclusionSmartphones can be used for teleconsultation. Subjective qualities of ophthalmic images on a smartphone are similar to those on tablets and computers. For rural communities that rely on teleconsultation, this small study provides useful evidence which may support the use of smartphones, tablets or computers for viewing ophthalmic images.

Indexed as

smartphonetelemedicineteleophthalmology

Identifiers

PMID32999968
PMCPMC7510393
OpenAlexW2911093839

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.