ArticleInternational ophthalmology2021
Development and usability evaluation of an application for patients with glaucoma.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and Pilot Testing of a Mobile App Psychosocial Intervention for Psychological Distress in Individuals with Glaucoma.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Mobile health and postoperative self-care following glaucoma, cataract, or corneal transplant surgeries.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Article
- Application of mobile health (mHealth) in the field of eye care: A scoping review of interventions used by individuals and health services to communicate.AJO international · 2025Article
- Self-management challenges and support needs among patients with primary glaucoma: a qualitative study.BMC nursing · 2023Article
- P4 Medicine for Heterogeneity of Dry Eye: A Mobile Health-based Digital Cohort Study.Juntendo Iji zasshi = Juntendo medical journal · 2023Review
- Design and evaluation of a mobile-based nutrition education application for infertile women in Iran.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2022Review
- Clinical Utility of Smartphone Applications in Ophthalmology: A Systematic Review.Ophthalmology scienceReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionGlaucoma is a progressive optic neuropathy that requires continuous monitoring. The purpose of the study was to develop and evaluate the usability of a mobile application, for iOS and Android platforms, containing functionalities to improve patients' knowledge about glaucoma and facilitate their treatment.
methodsThe application was developed by a multidisciplinary team using an adapted version of a co-design methodology. Volunteers were selected, among patients and patients' relatives, from the Instituto Cearense de Oftalmologia, chosen by rational choice sampling, to answer the system usability scale after having prior orientation. The results extracted from the questionnaire were analyzed quantitatively. After grouping by age, a proportions test (z-test) was performed.
resultsIt was possible to develop an application for mobile devices named "GlaucoCheck." Of the 36 interviewees, the average age was 51 (22-69) years old, 56% were women, and 30.5% had a university degree. The average APP score for usability in the SUS questionnaire was 75.6 (95% CI 74.1-77.2).
conclusionThere was an appropriate acceptance of patients to the "GlaucoCheck", as it was considered easy to handle, exhibiting interactive and uncomplicated layout. It was possible to develop an application and to register a positive acceptance by the users, encompassing functions that permits better adherence to treatments and additional knowledge about glaucoma.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34050855What 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.