ArticleMedicine2026
Digital measurement of blepharoptosis using smartphone photography and built-in markup tools: A prospective, blinded methodological comparison study with traditional ruler-based assessment.
Article in Medicine, 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
Abstract
To evaluate the accuracy, consistency, and efficiency of a novel digital measurement method for blepharoptosis grading utilizing iPhone photography and built-in markup tools, compared to the traditional ruler method. In this prospective, blinded methodological comparison study, 145 patients (185 eyes) with blepharoptosis were enrolled. Each patient underwent marginal reflex distance 1 (MRD1) measurement via both the traditional ruler method (control) and the iPhone method (experimental). The iPhone method involved capturing standardized photographs and performing measurements using the device's native markup feature. Agreement between methods was assessed using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Bland-Altman analysis. Grading consistency was evaluated using the Kappa statistic, and operational efficiency was compared via independent t-tests. The mean MRD1 values were 2.18 ± 0.94 mm (ruler) and 2.22 ± 0.89 mm (iPhone), with no statistically significant difference (P = .188). The 2 methods demonstrated excellent agreement, with an ICC of 0.968 (95% CI: 0.956-0.977). Bland-Altman analysis showed a mean bias of -0.04 mm, with 95% limits of agreement from -0.51 mm to 0.43 mm. Clinical grading consistency was almost perfect (Kappa = 0.892). The iPhone method was significantly more efficient, requiring less time than the traditional method (64.8 ± 18.7 s vs 86.5 ± 22.3 s, P < .001). The smartphone-based digital measurement method proves to be an accurate, reliable, and efficient alternative to the traditional ruler method for quantifying MRD1 and grading blepharoptosis. It demonstrates high agreement with conventional techniques while offering advantages in standardization, traceability, and operational workflow. This approach holds significant potential for enhancing diagnostic precision in clinical practice, particularly in outpatient and primary care 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.