ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Evaluation of Arclight Frugal Smartphone Video Otoscopy.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Arclight Frugal Smartphone Video Otoscopy.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
- The Comparison Between Arclight Loupe and Handheld Slit Lamp in Anterior Segment Eye Disease Diagnosis.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrugal innovations are essential in low-resource settings to provide cost-effective medical solutions without compromising functionality. The Arclight is a robust, solar-powered device that functions as both an ophthalmoscope and an otoscope, priced at approximately 12€ in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
objectivesThis study evaluates the Arclight's potential as a video otoscope when attached to smartphones, aiming to enhance telemedicine capabilities in ear examinations.
methodsTwenty otorhinolaryngology (ORL) specialists rated the standalone Arclight as well as its attachment to an iPhone 12 and a Samsung Galaxy A14 for ear examinations at the University Medical Centre in Mainz, Germany.
resultsThe standalone Arclight received the highest ratings overall, followed by the Arclight attached to a Samsung Galaxy A14. Attached to the Samsung Galaxy A14, the Arclight demonstrated significantly higher performance regarding ease of focus (p < 0.01), quality of view (p < 0.05), and zoom capabilities (p < 0.05) compared to the iPhone12 attachment. The iPhone12 setup performed lowest in all categories.
conclusionThe Arclight is an effective, low-cost tool for ear examinations in low-resource settings. While smartphone integration enhances its potential for telemedicine, performance varies depending on the smartphone used. The Samsung Galaxy A14 proved to be a more reliable option for tele-otoscopy than the iPhone 12. Further optimization is needed to improve smartphone integration and address identified limitations, enhancing the Arclight's utility in telemedicine applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: NA.
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.