ArticleCureus2025
Performance Validation of a New Portable Ophthalmic Ultrasound Device.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose This study aimed to compare a new indigenous portable ophthalmic ultrasound device with an industry-standard multinational device for its accuracy, precision, and potential use in home care. Methods Axial and transverse images were compared for the same eye at the same visit using the India-made and multinational-made industry-standard devices for several common and rare vitreoretinal conditions in a large referral center in India. All images were obtained by the same optometrist on the same day using the India- and multinational-made devices in that sequence. Two third-year retina fellow investigators masked to the diagnosis and device analyzed the images for inter- and intra-observer accuracy of clinical diagnosis. The clinical diagnosis was compared with a senior vitreoretinal faculty member. Results The study included 118 eyes scanned once with each device. The overall accuracy was 88.9% for the portable India-made device and 85.5% for the multinational-made device. The inter-observer agreement and kappa were the same for the India-made and multinational-made devices; these were 91.52% and 0.83, respectively. The intra-observer agreement for various diagnoses for grader 1 was 95% (Cohen's kappa: 0.89) and for grader 2 was 93.3% (Cohen's kappa: 0.86). Conclusion The India-made portable ophthalmic ultrasound device was non-inferior to the multinational-made device in clinical utility. Its advantages were portability, lesser cost, and ease of use, which make the device more suitable for home eye care.
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.