ArticleCornea open2023
Diagnostic accuracy of smartphone corneal photography for detection of corneal opacities in a resource-limited setting: a community-based study.
Article in Cornea open, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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
15 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of smartphone corneal photography in detecting corneal opacities in a community-based setting. Methods: A case-control, diagnostic accuracy study was nested in a cluster-randomized trial of a corneal ulcer prevention intervention in Nepal. Smartphone corneal photography was performed annually on community members self-reporting a potential risk factor for a corneal infection. Corneal photographs were graded for the presence or absence of an opacity. All cases with an opacity on smartphone photography and an equal number of controls were invited for a comprehensive eye examination with a slit lamp biomicroscope at an eye hospital. A mobile team visited participants unable to come to the hospital, conducting a limited examination with a penlight. Results: Of 1332 study participants (666 cases and 666 controls), 1097 had a penlight examination (535 cases and 562 controls) and 191 had a slit lamp examination (120 cases and 71 controls). When penlight examination was considered the reference standard, smartphone diagnosis of a corneal opacity had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 47% (95% confidence interval 43-52%) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 95% (93-97%). When slit lamp examination was considered the reference standard, the overall PPV and NPV were 71% (62-78%) and 80% (70-88%), respectively. The NPV was greater for detection of opacities > 1mm, estimated at 95% (90-98%). Conclusions: Corneal photography performed in a resource-limited community-based setting using a smartphone coupled to an external attachment had acceptable diagnostic accuracy for detection of corneal opacities large enough to be clinically meaningful.
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.