ReviewCureus2024
The Benefits and Challenges of Implementing Teleophthalmology in Low-Resource Settings: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Mapping global inequities in telemedicine implementation: An umbrella review of barriers and facilitators.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Unseen Insights: An AI-Powered Exploration of Secure Patient Messages in Ophthalmology.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Barriers and facilitators to the use of tele-ophthalmology in diabetic eye care: a scoping review.BMC health services research · 2026Article
- Teleophthalmology adoption and perceived barriers among Colombian general practitioners: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Public health implications of delayed diagnosis and treatment of optic neuritis in low-resource settings: a retrospective study of visual recovery outcomes.Frontiers in ophthalmology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Technology has significantly changed medical practice, including diagnosis, treatment, and availability. Telemedicine use in the specialty of ophthalmology seems to be a promising field. In underserved populations, limited coverage of ophthalmic healthcare facilities results in a higher burden of eye-related diseases and visual impairment. The main obstacle preventing these individuals from receiving eye care consultations is difficulty in access and transportation. There is an urgent need for eye care facilities for these people, and teleophthalmology has the potential to provide eye care facilities to these underserved people. Teleophthalmology was reported as cost-effective, time-saving, reliable, and efficient for underserved populations. However, teleophthalmology has certain limitations in its implementation in the form of a high initial cost of equipment, problems with consistent electricity and internet supply, and the reluctance of people in certain regions toward acceptance of teleophthalmology. This systematic review assessed the benefits and challenges of implementing teleophthalmology in low-resource settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.