John M Nesemann1,2,3, Marleny Muñoz4, Sandra L Talero5, Harvy A Honorio-Morales6, Andres G Lescano3, Jeremy D Keenan1. 1. Francis I Proctor Foundation, University of California, San Francisco 94158, USA. 2. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT, UK. 3. Emerge, Emerging Diseases and Climate Change Research Unit, School of Public Health and Administration, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima 15102, Perú. 4. Área de Epidemiología, Red de Salud Alto Amazonas, Yurimaguas 16501, Perú. 5. Escuela Superior de Oftalmología del Instituto Barraquer de América, Bogotá 110111, Colombia. 6. Componente de Salud Ocular y Prevención de la Ceguera, Ministerio de Salud, Lima 15072, Perú.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Improvements in technology could facilitate task-shifting and ocular disease screening in rural areas. METHODS: Visual acuity (VA) was tested using a Ministry of Health 3-m VA card. Anterior segment photographs were taken using a three-dimensional printed cellphone attachment and remotely graded. RESULTS: Of 326 photographed eyes, 1 was ungradable. Of 123 eyes with non-refractive visual impairment, cataract was identified in 35.8%, pterygium in 41.5%, corneal opacity in 5.7% and phthisis in 2.4%. CONCLUSIONS: While the cause of visual impairment cannot be determined without a posterior segment examination, the smartphone attachment proved to be easy to use by non-specialist workers and identified anterior segment pathology in most cases.
BACKGROUND: Improvements in technology could facilitate task-shifting and ocular disease screening in rural areas. METHODS: Visual acuity (VA) was tested using a Ministry of Health 3-m VA card. Anterior segment photographs were taken using a three-dimensional printed cellphone attachment and remotely graded. RESULTS: Of 326 photographed eyes, 1 was ungradable. Of 123 eyes with non-refractive visual impairment, cataract was identified in 35.8%, pterygium in 41.5%, corneal opacity in 5.7% and phthisis in 2.4%. CONCLUSIONS: While the cause of visual impairment cannot be determined without a posterior segment examination, the smartphone attachment proved to be easy to use by non-specialist workers and identified anterior segment pathology in most cases.
Authors: Robi N Maamari; Somsanguan Ausayakhun; Todd P Margolis; Daniel A Fletcher; Jeremy D Keenan Journal: JAMA Ophthalmol Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 8.253
Authors: Ashish Kumar; Ferhina S Ali; Valerie M Stevens; Jason S Melo; N Venkatesh Prajna; Prajna Lalitha; Muthiah Srinivasan; Gopal Bhandari; Sadhan Bhandari; Robi N Maamari; Daniel A Fletcher; Thomas M Lietman; Jeremy D Keenan Journal: Ophthalmic Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-04
Authors: Neha Misra; Rohit C Khanna; Asha L Mettla; Srinivas Marmamula; Varsha M Rathi; Anthony V Das Journal: Indian J Ophthalmol Date: 2020-02 Impact factor: 1.848