ArticleEye (London, England)2026
Comparison of portable devices with standard glaucoma diagnostic testing for the detection of glaucoma for the purposes of glaucoma case finding in low-and middle- income countries.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesGlaucoma is a leading cause of blindness worldwide, with the greatest burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where access to diagnostic services is limited. Portable devices, which are simple to use and comparable to standard tests, may strengthen early detection and referral. This study evaluated selected portable glaucoma assessment devices against standard reference tools in Nigeria and identified which tests or combinations most closely matched a glaucoma diagnosis. SUBJECTS/
methodsIn this cross-sectional study at the University of Abuja Teaching Hospital, 312 participants (524 eyes) underwent both portable and conventional testing: Peek CS vs. Pelli-Robson (contrast sensitivity), Peek Acuity vs. LogMAR (visual acuity), iCare vs. Goldmann Applanation Tonometry (GAT) (intraocular pressure), Eyecatcher vs. Humphrey Field Analyzer (visual fields), and Remedio handheld fundus camera vs. slit lamp (optic discs). Agreement, diagnostic accuracy (AUC), completion rates, and patient preference were assessed.
resultsStrong correlations were observed between iCare and GAT IOP (r = 0.96), Peek and LogMAR acuity (r = 0.82), and Remedio handheld fundus camera and slit lamp CDR (r = 0.82). The Remedio handheld fundus camera achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.91; sensitivity 82.4%, specificity 99.8%). Combining Remedio with Eyecatcher MD (AUC = 0.86) or iCare IOP (AUC = 0.83) also performed well. Portable devices were faster, had higher completion rates, and were strongly preferred by participants, particularly iCare and Eyecatcher.
conclusionsPortable devices showed good agreement with standard tools and high acceptability, supporting their potential role in glaucoma screening in resource-limited settings. Further community-based validation is recommended.
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.