ReviewClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2023
A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine.
Review in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2023. 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.
- Autonomous robotic alignment and dynamic illumination control of an ophthalmic slit lamp forJournal of biomedical optics · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Transformer Architectures and Ensemble Methods for Automated Glaucoma Screening in Fundus Images from Portable Ophthalmoscopes.Vision (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- An Automated Diagnosis of Myopia from an Optic Disc Image Using YOLOv11: A Feasible Approach for Non-Expert ECPs in Computer Vision.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Advances and Perspectives in Relation to the Molecular Basis of Diabetic Retinopathy-A Review.Biomedicines · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Recent advances in telemedicine have led to increased use of digital ophthalmoscopes (DO) in clinical settings. This review aims to assess commercially available DOs, including smartphone (SP), desktop, and handheld ophthalmoscopes, and evaluate their applications. Methods: A literature review was performed by searching PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Web of Science (webofknowledge.com), and Science Direct (sciencedirect.com). All English-language papers that resulted from the search terms "digital ophthalmoscope", "screening tool", "glaucoma screening", "diabetic retinopathy screening", "cataract screening", and "papilledema screening" were reviewed. Studies that contained randomized clinical trials with human participants between January 2010 and December 2020 were included. The Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the methodological quality of each included paper. Results: Of the 1307 studies identified, 35 met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The ROBIS tool determined that 29/35 studies (82.8%) had a low risk of bias, 3/35 (8.5%) had a moderate risk of bias, and 3/35 (8.5%) had a high risk of bias. Conclusion: The continued adoption of DOs remains uncertain because of concerns about the image quality for non-mydriatic eyes and the confidence in data captured from the device. Likewise, there is a lack of guidelines for the use of DOs, which makes it difficult for providers to determine the best device for their practice and to ensure appropriate use. Even so, DOs continue to gain acceptance as technology and practice integration improve, especially in underserved areas with limited access to ophthalmologists.
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.