Using a smartphone-based digital fundus camera for screening of retinal and optic nerve diseases in veterinary medicine: A preliminary investigation.

BACKGROUND: Ophthalmoscopy is a valuable tool in clinical practice. We report the use of a novel smartphone-based handheld device for visualisation and photo-documentation of the ocular fundus in veterinary medicine. METHODS: Selected veterinary patients of a referral ophthalmology service were included if one or both eyes had clear ocular media, allowing for examination of the fundus. Following pharmacological mydriasis, fundic images were obtained with a handheld fundus camera (Volk VistaView). For comparison, the fundus of a subset of animals was also imaged with a veterinary-specific fundus camera (Optomed Smartscope VET2). RESULTS: The large field of view achieved by the Volk VistaView allowed for rapid and thorough observation of the ocular fundus in animals, providing a tool to visualise and record common pathologies of the posterior segment. Captured fundic images were sometimes overexposed, with the tapetal fundus artificially appearing hyperreflective when using the Volk VistaView camera, a finding that was less frequent when activating a 'veterinary mode' that reduced the sensitivity of the camera's sensor. The Volk VistaView compared well with the Optomed Smartscope VET2. LIMITATION: The main study limitation was the small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The Volk VistaView camera was easy to use and provided good-quality fundic images in veterinary patients with healthy or diseased eyes, offering a wide field of view that was ideal for screening purposes.

Accuracy of data in abstracts of veterinary ophthalmology research articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

OBJECTIVE: Assess the accuracy of abstracts in published veterinary ophthalmology articles. PROCEDURES: Abstracts and contents of 204 original research articles in veterinary ophthalmology published in seven peer-reviewed journals between 2016-2020 were reviewed. Abstracts were considered inconsistent if they contained data that were either missing from or inconsistent with corresponding data in the article's body. Each abstract was graded between 0 (inaccurate) to 3 (accurate), and each inconsistency was subjectively classified as minor or major. The influence of selected variables was assessed: journal, impact factor, year of publication, number of words in abstract, study type (prospective/retrospective), and characteristics of the corresponding author [institution (academia/private practice), country of domicile (native/non-native English), number of publications]. RESULTS: Most abstracts were accurate, with 1%, 4%, 9% and 86% receiving a score of 0, 1, 2 and 3, respectively. When detected, most inconsistencies were considered minor (77%). Although not statistically significant (p ≥ .130), the proportion of articles with a perfect score (=3) was higher in prospective (88%) vs. retrospective (81%) studies, academia (88%) vs. private practice (78%), and studies from corresponding authors domiciled in English (89%) vs. non-English (83%) speaking countries. A significant but very weak (r = -0.15 to -0.19; p ≤ .034) negative correlation was found between accuracy score and number of words, as well as 1-year and 5-year impact factors. CONCLUSIONS: Although relatively uncommon, data in abstracts that are inconsistent or missing from the article's body do occur in veterinary ophthalmology articles, and could adversely influence a reader's interpretation of study findings.