ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Development of a smartphone-based retinal imaging device for stable fundus imaging.
Article in Japanese journal of 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo develop a smartphone-based imaging device and evaluate the operability and image acquisition performance. STUDY
designProspective pilot study.
methodsA prototype device was developed, integrating a smartphone holder, a 28-diopter lens holder, and a neck strap. Sixteen examiners (nine ophthalmology residents and seven certified orthoptists) recorded the fundus videos of a healthy volunteer for 60 seconds using three methods: manual handheld, a commercially available non-medical smartphone holder, and our device. Each video was converted into 1,800 frames. Frames were judged as success if they met four criteria: inclusion of the optic disc and macula, fundus coverage > 75%, minimal artifacts, and sharp focus. The image acquisition rate (stability) and the shortest image acquisition time (usability) were compared among the three conditions.
resultsThe image acquisition rate was significantly higher with our device (31.49 ± 32.53%) compared to the manual handheld (5.31 ± 12.35%; P = 0.0024) and the commercial non-medical holder (3.68 ± 6.96%; P = 0.0057). The shortest image acquisition time was also significantly lower for our device (15.27 ± 24.03 s) than for the other two methods (handheld: 47.10 ± 21.44 s, P = 0.0078; commercial non-medical holder: 36.69 ± 27.29 s, P = 0.0080).
conclusionThe device demonstrates significantly improved stability and ease of use compared with conventional methods. Its design may help reduce operator dependency and facilitate fundus image acquisition in supine patients. Further validation in the intended clinical populations is warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42891795What 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.