Cargando…

A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine

PURPOSE: Recent advances in telemedicine have led to increased use of digital ophthalmoscopes (DO) in clinical settings. This review aims to assess commercially available DOs, including smartphone (SP), desktop, and handheld ophthalmoscopes, and evaluate their applications. METHODS: A literature rev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Robles, Rafael, Patel, Nikhil, Neag, Emily, Mittal, Ajay, Markatia, Zahra, Ameli, Kambiz, Lin, Benjamin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dove 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10563770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37822326
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S423845
_version_ 1785118406041665536
author Robles, Rafael
Patel, Nikhil
Neag, Emily
Mittal, Ajay
Markatia, Zahra
Ameli, Kambiz
Lin, Benjamin
author_facet Robles, Rafael
Patel, Nikhil
Neag, Emily
Mittal, Ajay
Markatia, Zahra
Ameli, Kambiz
Lin, Benjamin
author_sort Robles, Rafael
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Recent advances in telemedicine have led to increased use of digital ophthalmoscopes (DO) in clinical settings. This review aims to assess commercially available DOs, including smartphone (SP), desktop, and handheld ophthalmoscopes, and evaluate their applications. METHODS: A literature review was performed by searching PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Web of Science (webofknowledge.com), and Science Direct (sciencedirect.com). All English-language papers that resulted from the search terms “digital ophthalmoscope”, “screening tool”, “glaucoma screening”, “diabetic retinopathy screening”, “cataract screening”, and “papilledema screening” were reviewed. Studies that contained randomized clinical trials with human participants between January 2010 and December 2020 were included. The Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the methodological quality of each included paper. RESULTS: Of the 1307 studies identified, 35 met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The ROBIS tool determined that 29/35 studies (82.8%) had a low risk of bias, 3/35 (8.5%) had a moderate risk of bias, and 3/35 (8.5%) had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The continued adoption of DOs remains uncertain because of concerns about the image quality for non-mydriatic eyes and the confidence in data captured from the device. Likewise, there is a lack of guidelines for the use of DOs, which makes it difficult for providers to determine the best device for their practice and to ensure appropriate use. Even so, DOs continue to gain acceptance as technology and practice integration improve, especially in underserved areas with limited access to ophthalmologists.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10563770
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Dove
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105637702023-10-11 A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine Robles, Rafael Patel, Nikhil Neag, Emily Mittal, Ajay Markatia, Zahra Ameli, Kambiz Lin, Benjamin Clin Ophthalmol Review PURPOSE: Recent advances in telemedicine have led to increased use of digital ophthalmoscopes (DO) in clinical settings. This review aims to assess commercially available DOs, including smartphone (SP), desktop, and handheld ophthalmoscopes, and evaluate their applications. METHODS: A literature review was performed by searching PubMed (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), Web of Science (webofknowledge.com), and Science Direct (sciencedirect.com). All English-language papers that resulted from the search terms “digital ophthalmoscope”, “screening tool”, “glaucoma screening”, “diabetic retinopathy screening”, “cataract screening”, and “papilledema screening” were reviewed. Studies that contained randomized clinical trials with human participants between January 2010 and December 2020 were included. The Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to assess the methodological quality of each included paper. RESULTS: Of the 1307 studies identified, 35 met inclusion and exclusion criteria. The ROBIS tool determined that 29/35 studies (82.8%) had a low risk of bias, 3/35 (8.5%) had a moderate risk of bias, and 3/35 (8.5%) had a high risk of bias. CONCLUSION: The continued adoption of DOs remains uncertain because of concerns about the image quality for non-mydriatic eyes and the confidence in data captured from the device. Likewise, there is a lack of guidelines for the use of DOs, which makes it difficult for providers to determine the best device for their practice and to ensure appropriate use. Even so, DOs continue to gain acceptance as technology and practice integration improve, especially in underserved areas with limited access to ophthalmologists. Dove 2023-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC10563770/ /pubmed/37822326 http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S423845 Text en © 2023 Robles et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) ). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms (https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).
spellingShingle Review
Robles, Rafael
Patel, Nikhil
Neag, Emily
Mittal, Ajay
Markatia, Zahra
Ameli, Kambiz
Lin, Benjamin
A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine
title A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine
title_full A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine
title_fullStr A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine
title_full_unstemmed A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine
title_short A Systematic Review of Digital Ophthalmoscopes in Medicine
title_sort systematic review of digital ophthalmoscopes in medicine
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10563770/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37822326
http://dx.doi.org/10.2147/OPTH.S423845
work_keys_str_mv AT roblesrafael asystematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT patelnikhil asystematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT neagemily asystematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT mittalajay asystematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT markatiazahra asystematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT amelikambiz asystematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT linbenjamin asystematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT roblesrafael systematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT patelnikhil systematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT neagemily systematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT mittalajay systematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT markatiazahra systematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT amelikambiz systematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine
AT linbenjamin systematicreviewofdigitalophthalmoscopesinmedicine