ArticleEye (London, England)2024
Evaluation of a telemedicine-enabled universal eye health delivery model in rural southern India.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Utility of primary care Vision Centres in increased uptake of formal eye care following ocular injury in rural South India.Eye (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the accuracy of tele-ophthalmic examination (TOE) for common ocular conditions in comparison with the gold-standard in-person examination (IPE) for diagnosis and treatment advice.
methodsIn a prospective, diagnostic accuracy validation study, we recruited 339 consecutive new patients, aged ≥16 years, visiting a vision centre (VC) associated with Aravind Eye Hospital in south India during January and February, 2020. All participants underwent the TOE, followed by IPE on the same visit. The in-person ophthalmologist was masked to the TOE diagnosis and treatment advice. Data were analysed via the sensitivity specificity of TOE versus the gold-standard IPE.
resultsTOE achieved high sensitivity and specificity for identifying normal eyes with 87.4% and 93.5%, respectively. TOE had high sensitivity for cataracts (91.7%), infective conjunctivitis (72.2%), and moderate sensitivity for pterygium (62.5%), DR (57.1%), non-serious injury (41.7%), but low sensitivity for glaucoma (12.5%). TOE had high specificity ranging from 93.5% to 99.8% for all diagnoses. The sensitivity for treatment advice ranged from 58.1% to 77.2% and specificity from 96.9% to 100%.
conclusionsThe TOE in VCs has acceptable accuracy to an IPE by an ophthalmologist for correctly identifying and treating major eye ailments. Through providing universal eye care to rural populations, this model may contribute to work toward achieving Universal Health Coverage, which is a linchpin of the health-related U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).
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.