ArticleBMJ open2025
Portable devices for the diagnosis of glaucoma: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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.
- Portable devices are the way forward!Indian journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Feasibility and performance of eye movement perimetry for glaucoma triage in Tanzania: A prospective cross-sectional study in a real-world setting.PLOS global public health · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGlaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide. Early detection and continuous monitoring are essential to preventing vision loss, yet traditional diagnostic tools remain largely inaccessible in low-resource settings. PURPOSE: This scoping review aimed to map the existing evidence on the use of portable devices for the detection, diagnosis and monitoring of glaucoma.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed across major databases to identify studies that evaluated handheld tonometers, portable fundus cameras and visual field testing devices. Data were extracted on study design, population characteristics, devices used, comparators and reported outcomes.
resultsA total of 216 studies published between 1975 and 2024 were included. Most studies (90.3%) were method agreement studies, primarily focused on intraocular pressure (IOP) devices. Only two studies evaluated all three glaucoma assessment domains (IOP, visual fields and fundus imaging). Most studies were conducted in high-income countries, with a smaller number from low- and middle-income countries. Despite variability in performance, many devices demonstrated acceptable agreement with gold standard methods and were assessed in a range of clinical and community settings.
conclusionThis review highlights the range and characteristics of portable glaucoma devices and their potential for enhancing access to diagnosis and monitoring, particularly in underserved settings. However, the predominance of method agreement studies and the limited integration of multimodal assessments point to gaps in the literature. Future research should focus on comprehensive diagnostic pathways using multiple portable tools and on expanding evaluations in low-resource settings to inform policy and service planning.
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.