Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37733348›Full record

ArticleJAMA ophthalmology2023

Using Smartphone Exophthalmometry to Measure Eyeball Protrusion.

Todor Popov, Fabienne C Fierz, Christopher J Bockisch, Konrad P Weber

Open access · greenAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA ophthalmology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Todor PopovDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Fabienne C FierzDepartment of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Christopher J BockischDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Konrad P WeberDepartment of Neurology, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
University Hospital of Zurich · CHUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: The current clinical criterion standard for measuring abnormal eyeball protrusion is still the historic Hertel exophthalmometer, which is prone to reading errors. Therefore, a smartphone application has been developed to measure exophthalmos. Objective: To evaluate a relatively simple noninvasive measurement method for exophthalmos using a smartphone. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study compared smartphone exophthalmometry with the existing reference standard, the Hertel exophthalmometer, or a professional high-resolution 3-dimensional scanner. Participants were patients with exophthalmos due to Graves orbitopathy and other intraorbital conditions and healthy volunteers who were recruited between June 2019 and January 2022 from the Department of Ophthalmology, University Hospital Zurich. Interventions: All participants were examined twice by 3 different operators using 3 different methods (smartphone, high-resolution scanner, or Hertel exophthalmometer) at an interval of a minimum of 2 weeks or after exophthalmos-changing treatment. Main Outcome Measures: Accuracy and precision, test-retest reliability, and interoperator reliability of eyeball protrusion measurements obtained with the smartphone compared to the Hertel exophthalmometer and the high-resolution face scanner. Results: Of 39 participants, 23 patients (median [IQR] age, 54 [44-59] years; 15 [65%] female and 8 [35%] male) showed a mean difference in eyeball protrusion of 3.3 mm and 16 healthy volunteers (median [IQR] age, 32 [30-37] years; 11 [69%] female and 5 [31%] male) of 0.8 mm without any significant difference between the 3 methods. Accuracy and precision agreement between exophthalmos measures with the smartphone and the Hertel exophthalmometer showed an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.80-0.94) and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.83-0.97) for the high-resolution scanner. Interoperator agreement was highest for the high-resolution scanner (ICC, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.98-0.99]), followed by the smartphone (ICC, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.92-0.97]) and the Hertel exophthalmometer (ICC, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.85-0.95]). Test retest reliability was similarly high for the smartphone (ICC, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.82-0.95]), the Hertel exophthalmometer (ICC, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.83-0.96]), and the high-resolution scanner (ICC, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.89-0.97]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study demonstrate relatively high accuracy and precision, interoperator reliability, and test-retest reliability for smartphone exophthalmometry. These data support the use of a smartphone in place of a Hertel exophthalmometer for measuring exophthalmos in the future.

Indexed as

ExophthalmosSmartphoneAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic Techniques, OphthalmologicalFemaleHumansImaging, Three-DimensionalMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37733348
PMCPMC10587781
OpenAlexW4386910649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.