ArticleBMJ open ophthalmology2023
Quality assessment of non-mydriatic fundus photographs for glaucoma screening in primary healthcare centres: a real-world study.
Article in BMJ open ophthalmology, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Undiagnosed glaucoma and its risk factors in the Yinzhou community-based glaucoma screening program.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Assessment of Retinal Image Quality Using a Non-Mydriatic Fundus Camera in a Teleophthalmologic Platform.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Application of artificial intelligence in glaucoma care: An updated review.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
- Big data for imaging assessment in glaucoma.Taiwan journal of ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study assessed the quality distribution of non-mydriatic fundus photographs (NMFPs) in real-world glaucoma screening and analysed its influencing factors.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in primary healthcare centres in the Yinzhou District, China, from 17 March to 3 December 2021. The quality distribution of bilateral NMFPs was assessed by the Digital Reading Department of the Eye Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University. Generalised estimating equations and logistic regression models identified factors affecting image quality.
resultsA total of 17 232 photographs of 8616 subjects were assessed. Of these, 11.9% of images were reliable for the right eyes, while only 4.6% were reliable for the left eyes; 93.6% of images were readable in the right eyes, while 90.3% were readable in the left eyes. In adjusted models, older age was associated with decreased odds of image readability (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.07, 95% CI 1.06~1.08, p<0.001). A larger absolute value of spherical equivalent significantly decreased the odds of image readability (all p<0.001). Media opacity and worse visual acuity had a significantly lower likelihood of achieving readable NMFPs (aOR=1.52, 95% CI 1.31~1.75; aOR=1.70, 95% CI 1.42~2.02, respectively, all p<0.001). Astigmatism axes within 31°~60° and 121°~150° had lower odds of image readability (aOR=1.35, 95% CI 1.11~1.63, p<0.01) than astigmatism axes within 180°±30°.
conclusionsThe image readability of NMFPs in large-scale glaucoma screening for individuals 50 years and older is comparable with relevant studies, but image reliability is unsatisfactory. Addressing the associated factors may be vital when implementing ophthalmological telemedicine in underserviced areas. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2200059277.
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.