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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |