ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2021
Clinical Observation of Allergic Conjunctival Diseases with Portable and Recordable Slit-Lamp Device.
Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Devising a Coaching Method for a Smartphone-Based Slit-Lamp Microscope and Its Learning Effects: A Pilot Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Reliability and Accuracy of Smart Eye Camera in Determining Grading of Nuclear Cataract.Korean journal of ophthalmology : KJO · 2025Observational
- Clinical evaluation of corneal ulcer with a portable and smartphone-attachable slit lamp device: Smart Eye Camera.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of post-keratoplasty status with a portable and smartphone-attachable smart eye camera.PloS one · 2025Article
- Primary Angle Closure Observed During a House Visit: A Case Treated With Laser Iridotomy.Cureus · 2024Article
- A Case of Traumatic Hyphema Diagnoses by Telemedicine Between a Remote Island and the Mainland of Tokyo.Cureus · 2024Article
- Development of the AI Pipeline for Corneal Opacity Detection.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Feasibility of Tear Meniscus Height Measurements Obtained with a Smartphone-Attachable Portable Device and Agreement of the Results with Standard Slit Lamp Examination.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- AI-based diagnosis of nuclear cataract from slit-lamp videos.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Telemedicine for Cornea and External Disease: A Scoping Review of Imaging Devices.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
- Ocular conditions and injuries, detection and management in spaceflight.NPJ microgravity · 2023Review
- Clinical observation of tear film breakup time with a novel smartphone-attachable technology.BMC ophthalmology · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence to estimate the tear film breakup time and diagnose dry eye disease.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Smart Eye Camera: A Validation Study for Evaluating the Tear Film Breakup Time in Human Subjects.Translational vision science & technology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe incidence of allergic conjunctival diseases (ACDs) is gradually increasing worldwide. Both ophthalmologists and non-ophthalmologists prescribe eye drops to treat ACDs; however, there are many cases which are treated without sufficient examination and diagnosis of the eyes. We have invented a portable, recordable, and smartphone-attachable slit-lamp device-Smart Eye Camera (SEC). The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic abilities of ACDs between the SEC and the conventional, non-portable slit-lamp microscope.
methodsThis prospective observational study included 32 eyes of 17 Japanese patients (mean age: 21.5 ± 14.8 years; range: 11-51 years; female: 5). The severity of 10 objective signs in the palpebral conjunctiva, bulbar conjunctiva, limbus, and cornea were scored on a grading scale of 0 to 4 (0 = normal; 1+ = mild; 2+ = moderate; 3+ = severe), respectively. First, the conventional slit-lamp microscope was used to examine the grade of the ACDs. Second, another ophthalmologist filmed the eyes using the SEC and two other ophthalmologists evaluated the grades on another day. The correlation and inter-rater reproducibility in total scores among the two devices were determined.
resultsTotal scores of clinical signs, evaluated by the two approaches, correlated significantly (both eyes: r = 0.918 (95% CI: 0.839 to 0.959;
conclusionsThe SEC is as reliable as the conventional non-portable slit-lamp microscope for assessing ACDs.
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.