ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Reliability of Smart Phone Photographs for School Eye Screening.
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of smartphone technology for detection of paediatric ocular diseases-a systematic review.BMC ophthalmology · 2025Pooled it
- Priorities in school eye health in low and middle-income countries a scoping review.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- Automatic Refractive Error Estimation Using Deep Learning-Based Analysis of Red Reflex Images.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Special Issue "Pediatric Eye Disease: Screening, Causes and Treatment".Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Smartphone photographs capturing Bruckner’s reflex have demonstrated reliability in identifying amblyogenic conditions in children. Assessing visual acuity for screening has been the traditional method since the inception of school screening. The present study aims to assess the reliability of smartphone photographs in detecting ocular morbidities in school children and to compare it with traditional vision screening. Two thousand five hundred and twenty school children underwent vision screening and smartphone cameraphotography by a trained research assistant followed by a comprehensive eye examination of all children by an ophthalmologist. Children with unaided visual acuity less than 6/12 in either of the eyes were graded as abnormal. Based upon the characteristics of the Bruckner’s reflex, the photographs were graded as normal or abnormal by two investigators blinded to the clinical findings. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the sensitivity and specificity of traditional vision screening and photograph based screening, considering comprehensive eye examination as the gold standard. The sensitivity and specificity of vision screening was 81.88% and 97.35% whereas for photographs it was 94.69% and 98.85% respectively. When the two methods were compared, the p value was <0.05. We conclude that smartphone photography is better than traditional vision screening for detecting ocular morbidities in school children.
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.