ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Exploring the Role of Portable Ophthalmic Devices in Clinical and Nonclinical Settings: Qualitative Study of Ophthalmologists and Optometrists.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Access to eye care is a persistent challenge due to the high global burden of visual impairment and barriers to receiving eye care, such as transportation and cost. Conventional ophthalmic equipment is immobile and unsuitable for bedside or community use, and this limits timely diagnosis and care delivery. Portable ophthalmic devices, such as handheld slit-lamps and fundus cameras, offer the potential to extend diagnostic capabilities to nonclinical settings and improve accessibility of eye care. Objective: This study examined eye care professionals' perceptions and experiences with portable ophthalmic devices, focusing on their roles in both clinical and nonclinical settings. Methods: Thirty-one practicing eye care professionals (16 ophthalmologists, 15 optometrists; 16 female, 15 male) with 2 to 45 years of clinical experience (mean 20.5, SD 13.1 y) participated. Semistructured interviews were conducted in person or via videoconferencing. The interview included open-ended qualitative questions on current and past use, benefits, and desired features of portable devices, along with quantitative ratings of device attributes on a 1 to 10 scale. Transcripts were coded in NVivo using thematic analysis, and descriptive statistics were calculated for the quantitative data. Results: Participants described portable devices as essential in settings where conventional equipment is impractical, including hospital rooms, emergency departments, nursing homes, and outreach. They emphasized utility for patients with mobility challenges and cognitive impairments. Key benefits included earlier disease detection and support for screening and referrals. Challenges involved image quality and device stabilization. Quantitative ratings of portable device attributes showed the highest scores for speed (median 8, IQR 6-8) and ease of use (median 8, IQR 6-8). Conclusions: Portable ophthalmic devices expand access to eye care beyond standard clinics and accommodate patients underserved by traditional equipment. Addressing technical and usability challenges and enhancing training opportunities will strengthen their integration into routine and outreach care.
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.