ArticleEuropean journal of ophthalmology2022
A systematic review of the current availability of mobile applications in eyecare practices.
Article in European journal of ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of smartphone technology for detection of paediatric ocular diseases-a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Bridging gaps in corneal ulcer management: Can photoactivated chromophore for infectious keratitis-corneal collagen cross-linking delay or replace therapeutic keratoplasty?World journal of transplantation · 2026Article
- Design and Validation of a Novel Smartphone-Based Visual Acuity Test: The K-VA Test.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing shift towards non-communicable eye diseases (NCEDs) because of a demographic transition. Incorporation of telemedicine into everyday clinical practice is becoming increasingly popular. We sought to carry out a systematic review to look at which applications on portable devices are available for use in eyecare practices for patients with NCEDs, specifically refractive error, diabetic retinopathy, age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and glaucoma.
methodsPubmed, EMBASE, Medline, PsychInfo databases were systematically searched using keywords and MeSH terms. Eligible articles included peer-reviewed, original full text articles evaluating apps for use on portable devices aimed at patients with NCEDs.
resultsThe initial search yielded 100 studies. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria, and an additional eight studies were identified through reference screening. Of the included studies, 29.4%% (n = 5) evaluated applications aimed for use to identify refractive errors, 35.3% (n = 6) aimed at patients with glaucoma, 23.5% (n = 4) for use by patients with AMD, 11.7% (n = 2) for the non-specific monitoring of visual acuity/fields. 76.5% (n = 13) of the studies showed that the application evaluated was an effective and reliable tool compared to clinical standards.
conclusionsPortable device applications in patients with NCED have been shown to be effective. The use of these apps for patients is limited to either diagnostic or monitoring use. There is scope for apps which encompass other aspects of patient care that have been used in other specialties that may be applied to ophthalmic patients, including those with an educational aim which have a role in increasing compliance.
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.