ArticlePLOS digital health2022
Diagnostic accuracy of handheld fundus photography: A comparative study of three commercially available cameras.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Underutilized Ocular Fundus in Emergency Departments: Current Progress and Future Prospect of Imaging and Artificial Intelligence for Patient Care.Ophthalmology science · 2026Review
- Validation of the Eyerobo FC Portable Fundus Camera for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening Using Public Datasets and Deep Learning.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2026Article
- Mobile Diagnostic Clinics.ACS sensors · 2024Review
- Bridging the Camera Domain Gap With Image-to-Image Translation Improves Glaucoma Diagnosis.Translational vision science & technology · 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
11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this study was to compare the sensitivity and specificity of handheld fundus cameras in detecting diabetic retinopathy (DR), diabetic macular edema (DME), and macular degeneration. Participants in the study, conducted at Maharaj Nakorn Hospital in Northern Thailand between September 2018 and May 2019, underwent an ophthalmologist examination as well as mydriatic fundus photography with three handheld fundus cameras (iNview, Peek Retina, Pictor Plus). Photographs were graded and adjudicated by masked ophthalmologists. Outcome measures included the sensitivity and specificity of each fundus camera for detecting DR, DME, and macular degeneration, relative to ophthalmologist examination. Fundus photographs of 355 eyes from 185 participants were captured with each of the three retinal cameras. Of the 355 eyes, 102 had DR, 71 had DME, and 89 had macular degeneration on ophthalmologist examination. The Pictor Plus was the most sensitive camera for each of the diseases (73-77%) and also achieved relatively high specificity (77-91%). The Peek Retina was the most specific (96-99%), although in part due to its low sensitivity (6-18%). The iNview had slightly lower estimates of sensitivity (55-72%) and specificity (86-90%) compared to the Pictor Plus. These findings demonstrated that the handheld cameras achieved high specificity but variable sensitivities in detecting DR, DME, and macular degeneration. The Pictor Plus, iNview, and Peek Retina would have distinct advantages and disadvantages when applied for utilization in tele-ophthalmology retinal screening programs.
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.