ArticleJapanese journal of ophthalmology2026
Digitalization of the diabetic eye notebook: patient and physician perspectives on a smartphone application for diabetic retinopathy management.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate patient and physician perspectives on the digitalization of the Diabetic Eye Notebook into a smartphone application, focusing on expectations, concerns, and potential benefits for the management of diabetic retinopathy (DR). STUDY
designA two-part prospective cross-sectional study comprising a multicenter patient survey and a single-center pilot usability and acceptability evaluation. (March-August 2024).
methodsTwo independent surveys were conducted. In Study (A), 197 patients with diabetes from five institutions completed questionnaires assessing their awareness and use of the paper-based notebooks, willingness to adopt the application, and related expectations and concerns. In Study (B), a preliminary single-center pilot usability and acceptability evaluation was conducted in which eight physicians and ten patients at one institution used a beta version of the application and provided feedback on usability, functionality, and potential benefits.
resultsIn Study A: awareness and usage rates of the Diabetic Eye Notebook were 13.7 and 7.1%, respectively, both lower than those of the Japan Association for Diabetes Education and Care Coordination Notebook. Willingness to adopt the application was reported by 43.7% of patients. Patients willing to adopt the application were younger in the unadjusted comparison (mean age, 60.3 vs. 70.4 years; P<0.001), whereas the adjusted model showed a different direction for the age association, possibly reflecting confounding or a suppression effect related to routine smartphone-application use. Desired features included appointment reminders (47.3%), data sharing (32.2%), and visualization of clinical data (30.8%). Concerns included operational difficulty (64.4%) and data privacy (20.8%). In Study (B), physicians valued portability (75.0%) and improved communication (50.0%) but noted data entry burden (50.0%) and privacy issues (50.0%). Patients valued portability, treatment, history review, and improved communication (30.0% each), but reported privacy (40.0%) and usability (40.0%) concerns.
conclusionThis study identified key expectations and concerns among patients and physicians regarding the digitalization of the Diabetic Eye Notebook. Although the application has the potential to overcome practical limitations of the paper-based format, usability for older adults and data security remain major challenges, underscoring the need for further refinement and prospective evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42891798What 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.