ArticleMedical devices (Auckland, N.Z.)2025
The Comparison Between Arclight Loupe and Handheld Slit Lamp in Anterior Segment Eye Disease Diagnosis.
Article in Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.), 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Early diagnosis of eye diseases improves outcomes and reduces blindness. However, diagnostic capacity in resource-poor settings is limited by a shortage of trained and equipped healthcare professionals. The Arclight device is a user-friendly, cost-effective diagnostic tool for both anterior and posterior segment eye diseases that requires minimal training. Studies have shown it to be effective for assessing the fundal reflex and performing fundoscopy; however, its accuracy and acceptability for anterior segment eye disease are still unknown. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study carried out at Mulago National Super Specialised Hospital, where 21 ophthalmic clinical officers (OCOs) were recruited from surrounding districts. Each participant evaluated eleven patients with anterior segment pathologies and one normal case using the Arclight loupe and a handheld Slit Lamp. The diagnosis and the proportion of correctly identified conditions were recorded. Focus group discussions were held to assess the acceptability of using the devices. Discussions were transcribed verbatim and analysed using latent and manifest content analysis. Results: Of the 21 participants, 13 (61.9%) were female, with a median age of 39 (IQR: 33-49), and had practiced for 6 to 10 years, representing 76.2%. The majority of conditions were correctly identified by both the Arclight (71.2%) and handheld slit lamp (72.3%). Pterygium was the most accurately diagnosed condition (100%) with the Arclight. Based on themes from Sekhon's framework and the Technology Acceptance Model, the Arclight device was found to be highly acceptable and easy for OCOs to use. Conclusion: The performance of the OCOs in diagnosing anterior segment diseases with the Arclight is comparable to that of a handheld Slit lamp. It was also found to be an acceptable device for diagnostic purposes. In conclusion, the Arclight device is a suitable, low-cost alternative to the handheld Slit Lamp, especially in resource-limited settings.
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.