Search Results (4)

Smartphone-based portable slit lamp microscopes are increasingly used as low-cost tools for anterior segment imaging in teleophthalmology, yet the literature combines heterogeneous study designs, comparator standards, and deployment contexts. Because the evidence base spans engineering reports, basic science, clinical validation studies, implementation research, and case-based telemedicine, we structured a narrative review rather than a pooled meta-analysis. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect, and DOAJ for literature available on or before 28 February 2026, supplemented by manual reference list screening and targeted retrieval of relevant technical standards. Peer-reviewed English original studies formed the core evidence base; contextual non-English and gray literature sources were retained only when explicitly labeled as non-core. To improve interpretability, the results were grouped by synthesis domain, clinical task, comparator standard, telemedicine scenario, and artificial intelligence (AI) dataset/validation characteristics. The highest-confidence evidence concerned nuclear cataract grading, tear film breakup time and corneal staining assessment, anterior chamber depth screening, tear meniscus height measurement, allergic conjunctival grading, and selected corneal disorders. Agreement with conventional slit lamp examination or anterior segment optical coherence tomography was generally moderate to high within task-specific comparisons, and telemedicine deployment was feasible for screening, follow-up, remote consultation, emergency triage, house visits, and outreach. However, illumination reporting remains inconsistent, explicit ISO-aligned dosimetry is sparse, and most AI studies remain retrospective, single-center, and device family-specific. Current evidence, therefore, supports smartphone-based portable slit lamp microscopes primarily as adjunctive teleophthalmology tools rather than replacements for comprehensive in-clinic microscopy. The synthesis clarifies where conclusions are supported by comparative validation data, where they remain exploratory, and which methodological gaps should be prioritized in future multicenter studies. Full article

Background: The incidence of allergic conjunctival diseases (ACDs) is gradually increasing worldwide. Both ophthalmologists and non-ophthalmologists prescribe eye drops to treat ACDs; however, there are many cases which are treated without sufficient examination and diagnosis of the eyes. We have invented a portable, recordable, and smartphone-attachable slit-lamp device—Smart Eye Camera (SEC). The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic abilities of ACDs between the SEC and the conventional, non-portable slit-lamp microscope. Methods: This prospective observational study included 32 eyes of 17 Japanese patients (mean age: 21.5 ± 14.8 years; range: 11–51 years; female: 5). The severity of 10 objective signs in the palpebral conjunctiva, bulbar conjunctiva, limbus, and cornea were scored on a grading scale of 0 to 4 (0 = normal; 1+ = mild; 2+ = moderate; 3+ = severe), respectively. First, the conventional slit-lamp microscope was used to examine the grade of the ACDs. Second, another ophthalmologist filmed the eyes using the SEC and two other ophthalmologists evaluated the grades on another day. The correlation and inter-rater reproducibility in total scores among the two devices were determined. Results: Total scores of clinical signs, evaluated by the two approaches, correlated significantly (both eyes: r = 0.918 (95% CI: 0.839 to 0.959; p < 0.001)), with substantial inter-rater agreement (weighted κ value = 0.631 (95% CI: 0.601 to 0.661; p < 0.001)). Conclusions: The SEC is as reliable as the conventional non-portable slit-lamp microscope for assessing ACDs. Full article

This study assessed the anterior chamber depth (ACD) and iridocorneal angle using a portable smart eye camera (SEC) compared to the conventional slit-lamp microscope and anterior-segment optical coherence tomography (AS-OCT). This retrospective case-control study included 170 eyes from 85 Japanese patients. The correlation between the ACD evaluations conducted with the SEC and conventional slit-lamp was high (r = 0.814). The correlation between the Van-Herick Plus grade obtained using two devices was also high (r = 0.919). A high kappa value was observed for the Van-Herick Plus grading (Kappa = 0.757). A moderate correlation was observed between the ACD measured using AS-OCT and the slit-lamp image acquired with the conventional slit-lamp microscope and SEC (r = 0.609 and 0.641). A strong correlation was observed between the trabecular-iris angle (TIA) measured using AS-OCT and Van-Herick Plus grade obtained with the conventional slit-lamp microscope and SEC (r = 0.702 and 0.764). Strong correlations of ACD evaluation and high kappa value of the Van-Herick Plus grading indicated the adequate subjective assessment function of the SEC. Moderate correlations between the ACD objective measurement and evaluation and strong correlation between the TIA and Van-Herick Plus grade suggested the good objective assessment function of the SEC. The SEC demonstrated adequate performance for ACD evaluation and angle estimation. Full article

Background: Visual impairments and age-related eye diseases need to be detected and treated in a timely manner. However, this is often hampered by lack of appropriate medical equipment. We have invented a portable, recordable, and smartphone-attachable slit-lamp device, called the Smart Eye Camera (SEC). The aim of this study was to compare evaluating nuclear cataract (NUC) between the SEC and the conventional, non-portable slit-lamp microscope. Methods: A total of 128 eyes of 64 Japanese patients (mean age: 73.95 ± 9.28 years; range: 51‒92 years; female: 34) were enrolled. The NUC was classified into four grades (grade 0 to 3) based on three standard photographs of nuclear opacities according to the WHO classification by ophthalmologists. An ophthalmic healthcare assistant (non-ophthalmologist) filmed the eyes in video mode by the SEC and an ophthalmologist graded the NUC. Grade correlation and inter-rater reproducibility were determined. Results: NUC grading by the two approaches correlated significantly (both eyes: r = 0.871 [95%CI: 0.821 to 0.907; p < 0.001]). Inter-rater agreement was high (weighted κ = 0.807 [95%CI: 0.798 to 0.816; p < 0.001]). Conclusions: This study suggests that the SEC is as reliable as the conventional non-portable slit-lamp microscope for evaluating NUC. Full article