ArticleOpen veterinary journal2016
Student attitudes regarding the educational value and welfare implications in the use of model eyes and live dogs in teaching practical fundus examination: evaluation of responses from 40 students.
Article in Open veterinary journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Physical models and simulators in veterinary education: current status, learning impact, and future perspectives.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study sought to document student opinions on the educational value and welfare implications of use of artificial model eyes and live dogs in the training of veterinary students in examination of the canine fundus. Forty students who had undertaken a practical class on canine fundoscopy involving both use of artificial model eyes and live dogs were asked to complete a short questionnaire using a Likert scale to gauge their opinion on whether the use of live dogs and artificial eyes was very valuable (scoring 2), valuable (1), a neutral response (0), not particularly valuable (-1) or not at all valuable (-2) and to write a free text response on their views of the educational value and welfare implications of using artificial model eyes or live dogs in training for ophthalmic examination of the canine ocular fundus. Likert responses were 1.84±0.37 for using live greyhounds and 0.58±0.79 for using simulator eyes (p<0.0001). Thematic analysis of the written responses showed that while the artificial eyes were considered somewhat valuable in initial training, the live dogs were significantly preferred for their realism and the opportunity to examine the eye while handling a live animal. In conclusion, while model eyes are valuable initial training in use of the ophthalmoscope for funduscopic examination, students consider that examining the eye in the live dog is significantly more valuable and that the welfare of dogs thus used is not in their view unduly compromised.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.