ArticleJMIR formative research2026
Digital Anterior Segment Photography in Clinical Practice: Mixed Methods Study.
Article in JMIR formative research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In the digital era, smartphone technology has significantly advanced ocular imaging, allowing for high-resolution anterior segment photography (ASP) to enhance referrals, decision-making, and disease monitoring within clinical workflows. Objective: This exploratory quality-improvement project aims to examine clinician experiences with 4 smartphone-based and slit-lamp-based ASP workflows used in eye casualty and corneal services. Methods: A mixed methods project was conducted at a tertiary eye hospital in England (United Kingdom) between October 21, 2024, and December 6, 2024. The full imaging setups of 4 ASP workflows were evaluated within an established clinical setting: the Magnifier app (a smartphone-based app; Apple Inc), QuikVue smartphone adapter (a smartphone-based camera lens attachment; VisuScience Meditech Co Ltd), NexYZ Slit-Lamp Adapter (a slit-lamp-based attachment; Celestron LLC), and Zeiss Slit Lamp Imaging Solution (ZSLIS; an integrated slit-lamp camera system; Carl Zeiss AG). Ophthalmology residents and corneal fellows completed nonvalidated usability surveys and participated in one-on-one interviews examining the role of ASP workflows in clinical practice. Survey data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Interviews were transcribed and subjected to reflexive thematic analysis. Results: Among 25 survey respondents (17 residents and 8 fellows) and 12 interviewees, clinician-rated assessments of usability, cost-effectiveness, and clinical utility favored the Magnifier workflow, which received the highest ratings across these domains (19/25, 76%; 23/25, 92%; and 18/25, 72% strongly agreed, respectively). Five themes emerged from qualitative analysis: obstacles to clinical implementation, accessibility, quality and workflow, digital ethics, and innovation. Conclusions: No single ASP workflow proved superior in usability ratings and interview themes regarding clinical application. However, the use of the Magnifier workflow appeared to offer the most favorable balance of usability, cost-effectiveness, and clinical utility in clinician-rated assessments, though this reflects the full imaging workflow rather than the app alone. These findings are exploratory and require future work to examine workflow integration, data governance for smartphone imaging, and patient perspectives on ASP workflows.
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.