ArticleVeterinary ophthalmology2026
Comparative Evaluation of Smartphone-Based Fundus Imaging Systems in Dogs and Cats.
Article in Veterinary 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the feasibility, image quality, acquisition time, and evaluator preference of four smartphone-based fundus imaging (SBFI) systems in dogs and cats using a handheld fundus camera as a reference device. ANIMALS STUDIED: Twenty client-owned animals, including 10 dogs and 10 cats. PROCEDURES: Fundus images were obtained from 40 eyes (20 mydriatic and 20 non-mydriatic) using four SBFI systems (iExaminer Panoptic, NUN WFE-02S, OQVet, and VistaView) and a handheld infrared fundus camera (Aurora). Image acquisition success and acquisition time were recorded for each device. Image quality was independently graded using a 10-point Likert scale by a masked panel of 32 veterinary ophthalmologists. Evaluators also selected their preferred image among the four SBFI systems.
resultsImage acquisition was successful in all animals for all devices under both mydriatic and non-mydriatic conditions (100%). Image quality differed significantly between devices. Among SBFI systems, OQVet achieved the highest median score (7; interquartile range [IQR] 6-8), followed by VistaView (6; IQR 5-8), NUN (5; IQR 4-7), and iExaminer (4; IQR 3-5). OQVet received approximately 50% of evaluator preference votes. The reference camera achieved the highest image quality in 77.5% of imaging sets but was outperformed by OQVet (15%) and VistaView (7.5%) in some examinations. Pupil dilation did not significantly influence image quality or acquisition time.
conclusionsSmartphone-based fundus imaging enables reliable retinal imaging in dogs and cats and represents an accessible option for retinal documentation and screening in veterinary practice.
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.