ArticleIndian journal of ophthalmology2026
Comparison of a mobile imaging device for anterior segment (MIDAS) with a commercially available portable and conventional slit-lamp imaging for cataract photography.
Article in Indian journal of ophthalmology, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare cataract images obtained using portable slit-lamp devices with those taken from the standard slit-lamp built-in camera.
designProspective, single-center, comparative digital imaging validation study.
methodsA total of 198 slit-lamp images were taken from 66 patients with cataracts using a smartphone slit-lamp prototype ("MIDAS"), a tablet with a portable slit-lamp ("I.C.P."), and a slit-lamp with a custom-mounted digital camera ("ASC"). An ophthalmologist, an optometrist, and a family medicine resident independently graded the images according to Nuclear Opalescence (NO) and Nuclear Colour (NC) of the Lens Opacities Classification System III. The intraclass correlation (ICC) for the devices was calculated. Graders' confidence and subjective assessment of image quality were assessed through a 5-point Likert scale questionnaire.
resultsFor NO, ICC was fair for MIDAS (0.619, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] = 0.426 to 0.754) and I.C.P. (0.585, 95% CI = 0.373 to 0.733) but poor for ASC (0.394, 95% CI = 0.088 to 0.609). For NC, ICC was excellent for all (MIDAS, 0.837, 95% CI = 0.755 to 0.895; I.C.P., 0.851, 95% CI = 0.775 to 0.904; ASC, 0.892, 95% CI = 0.837 to 0.930). Grader confidence was the highest for ASC images (85.5%), followed by I.C.P. (69.1%) and MIDAS (65.6%). Subjective assessment of image quality was the highest for ASC images (96.5%), followed by I.C.P. (77.3%) and MIDAS (74.2%).
conclusionsPortable slit-lamp devices had excellent ICC for assessing NC and fair ICC for assessing NO. Graders expressed greater confidence and higher perceived image quality for the standard slit-lamp built-in camera.
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.