Evidence mapPaperPMID 39856154Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Clinical evaluation of corneal ulcer with a portable and smartphone-attachable slit lamp device: Smart Eye Camera.

Sadegh Ghafarian, Ahmad Masoumi, Seyed Ali Tabatabaei, Mehdi Yaseri, Eisuke Shimizu, Shintaro Nakayama, Rohan Jeetendra Khemlani, Hiroki Nishimura, Hassan Asadigandomani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluation of corneal infections using a smartphone macro lens for synchronous telemedicine.Saudi journal of ophthalmology : official journal of the Saudi Ophthalmological Society
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Sadegh GhafarianEye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Ahmad MasoumiEye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Seyed Ali TabatabaeiEye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Mehdi YaseriDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Eisuke ShimizuDepartment of Ophthalmology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Shintaro NakayamaDepartment of Ophthalmology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Rohan Jeetendra KhemlaniOUI Inc., Minato-ku, Minami-Aoyama, 2-2-8, DF Building 510, Tokyo, 107-0062, Japan.
Hiroki NishimuraDepartment of Ophthalmology, Keio University School of Medicine, Tokyo, Japan.
Hassan AsadigandomaniEye Research Center, Farabi Eye Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Hasanasadigandomani0800@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Corneal ulcer is one of the most important ophthalmic emergencies. A portable, recordable, and smartphone-attachable slit-lamp device called the "Smart Eye Camera" (SEC) is introduced to compare evaluating corneal ulcers between the SEC and the conventional slit-lamp. A total of 110 participants were included in the study, consisting of 55 patients with corneal ulcers and 55 age- and gender-matched healthy volunteers as controls. The participants were first subjected to examination by a conventional slit lamp. The video recording with SEC and imaging with a slit lamp were done by a non-medical person. Both SEC videos and slit-lamp photos were reported by two independent ophthalmologists and compared with a slit-lamp examination as a gold standard. The average age of the study participants was 48.85 ± 20.45 years and 68 participants (61.8%) were male. All corneal ulcers were detected by two ophthalmologists using SEC. Ulcer size evaluated in slit lamp and SEC horizontally (Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC); 0.90, 95% CI; 0.84-0.94) and vertically (ICC; 0.90, 95% CI; 0.84-0.94) is correlated about 90%. Hypopyon size (ICC; 0.95, 95% CI; 0.92-0.97), and corneal epithelial defect (CED) size horizontally (ICC; 0.94, 95% CI; 0.91-0.96) and vertically (ICC; 0.94, 95% CI; 0.91-0.96) also correlated about 94%. The infiltration pattern evaluated by SEC was consistent with the pattern evaluated in slit lamps in more than 80% of patients. The SEC is so accurate in diagnosing corneal ulcers and its reliability makes it a valuable telemedicine device.

Indexed as

Corneal UlcerPhotographySlit LampSlit Lamp MicroscopySmartphoneAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedVideo RecordingCorneal ulcerMicrobial keratitisSECSmart Eye CameraTelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID39856154
PMCPMC11759699

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.