ArticleClinical hypertension2026
Smartphone ophthalmoscopy for assessment of hypertensive retinopathy in suspected hypertensive emergency: a pilot study.
Article in Clinical hypertension, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Fundoscopy is of pivotal importance in patients with suspected hypertensive emergency in order to detect hypertensive retinopathy and determine the need for prompt intravenous antihypertensive treatment. However, direct fundoscopy by an ophthalmologist is time-consuming and delays treatment. In this pilot study in the emergency department (ED), we evaluated whether smartphone ophthalmoscopy is a feasible and faster alternative. Methods: We evaluated duration of ED-treatment in patients who underwent smartphone ophthalmoscopy for suspected hypertensive emergency. Smartphone ophthalmoscopy included 30-second retinal video recordings captured by the attending physicians, which were remotely evaluated by an ophthalmologist. Patients in the smartphone-group were matched in a 1:2-ratio to a historical cohort who underwent direct fundoscopy by an ophthalmologist. We evaluated total ED-length-of-stay (total ED-LOS; defined as the interval between ED-admission and ED-discharge) and 'treatment time' (defined as total ED-LOS minus time in waiting room). Results: In the present analysis, we included 54 patients in the smartphone-group and matched them with 108 historical controls. On average, total ED-LOS was 29 minutes shorter in the smartphone-group as compared to controls (217 ± 73 minutes vs. 246 ± 73 minutes; Conclusions: Smartphone ophthalmoscopy in suspected hypertensive emergency was feasible and faster as compared to direct fundoscopy by an ophthalmologist, which may allow earlier treatment and reduce ED-crowding.
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.