ReviewCureus2026
Teleophthalmology and Remote Eye Care: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 50 Most Highly Cited Articles From 2000 to 2025.
Review in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Teleophthalmology has emerged as an evidence-based strategy to improve access to ophthalmic care and reduce preventable visual impairment, particularly in underserved settings where specialist shortages are acute. This study presents a bibliometric analysis of the 50 most-cited articles in teleophthalmology and remote eye care to characterize publication trends, journal distribution, geographic contribution, evidence levels, study designs, and major thematic areas. A structured literature search of the Web of Science Core Collection was executed to identify remote eye care publications spanning 2000 to 2025. The top 50 cited peer-reviewed articles were screened, extracted, and analyzed using descriptive bibliometric methods and keyword co-occurrence network mapping via VOSviewer (version 1.6.20; Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands). The 50 articles accumulated 10,621 total citations (mean: 212.4; median: 166.5), with the top 10 accounting for 44.1% of citations - indicating a broad rather than highly concentrated scholarly influence. The 2010s contributed 62.0% of the articles, representing the most productive decade. Publications were highly concentrated in JAMA Ophthalmology (n = 9), Ophthalmology (n = 8), and the British Journal of Ophthalmology (n = 5), originating predominantly from North America (44.0%), Asia (24.0%), and Europe (18.0%). Observational studies (26.0%) and diagnostic validation studies (24.0%) dominated the study design profile. Only one randomized controlled trial (2.0%) appeared in the top 50, while diabetic retinopathy screening and artificial intelligence emerged as the primary leading thematic clusters. Teleophthalmology has developed into a clinically relevant field supported by a distributed base of highly cited work. However, the predominance of non-randomized Level IIb and Level III evidence (54.0%), severe underrepresentation of low-resource settings, and a stark scarcity of randomized controlled trials (2.0%) highlight critical systemic gaps. Future research must prioritize prospective multicenter trials, standardized validation frameworks, and equity-focused implementation studies in underserved regions.
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.