ArticleRoyal Society open science2023
Evaluation of a portable retinal imaging device: towards a comparative quantitative analysis for morphological measurements of retinal blood vessels.
Article in Royal Society open science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the possibility of using low-cost, handheld, retinal imaging devices for the automatic extraction of quantifiable measures of retinal blood vessels. Initially, the available handheld devices were compared using a Zeiss model eye incorporating a USAF resolution test chart to assess their optical properties. The only suitable camera of the five evaluated was the Horus DEC 200. This device was then subjected to a detailed evaluation in which images in human eyes taken from the handheld camera were compared in a quantitative analysis with those of the same eye from a Canon CR-DGi retinal desktop camera. We found that the Horus DEC 200 exhibited shortcomings in capturing images of human eyes by comparison with the Canon. More images were rejected as being unevaluable or suffering failures in automatic segmentation than with the Canon, and even after exclusion of affected images, the Horus yielded lower measurements of vessel density than the Canon. A number of issues affecting handheld cameras in general and some features of the Horus in particular have been identified that might contribute to the observed differences in performance. Some potential mitigations are discussed which might yield improvements in performance, thus potentially facilitating use of handheld retinal imaging devices for quantitative retinal microvascular measurements.
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.