ArticleEye (London, England)2021
The Arclight vs. traditional ophthalmoscope: a cross-over trial.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Comparison Between Arclight Loupe and Handheld Slit Lamp in Anterior Segment Eye Disease Diagnosis.Medical devices (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Article
- Fundoscopy in the smartphone age: current ophthalmoscopy methods in neurology.Arquivos de neuro-psiquiatria · 2023Article
- Teaching Smartphone Funduscopy with 20 Diopter Lens in Undergraduate Medical Education.Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2021Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesTo compare skill acquisition of the new, cost-effective Arclight ophthalmoscope, with the traditional ophthalmoscope (TO), in medical students with no prior experience of ophthalmoscopy. SUBJECTS/
methodsUniversity of Dundee medical students took part in a cross-over trial. Students were divided into two groups and were alternately taught each device using a video tutorial. In period one, Group A was taught the TO first; Group B was taught the Arclight. They were then assessed using simulated objective, structured, clinical, examinations, examining four model heads with lettered fundal photographs of varying sizes of font. Groups crossed over following a 2-week washout period and were taught the second device and reassessed. A questionnaire was distributed to ascertain students' opinions and preferences.
resultsForty medical students participated. Overall, 92.5% of students performed better with the Arclight, irrespective of cross-over trial period. The mean difference in score in period one of the cross-over trial was 16.77 (95% CI: 11.63-21.93), with students performing better with the Arclight (p < 0.0001). The mean difference in score in period two was 8.02 (95% CI: 4.52-11.52), with students performing better with the Arclight (p < 0.0001). In addition, performance with the TO improved by 52.9% following initial exposure to the Arclight. The Arclight was the preferred device by 82.5% of students, and 82.5% of students would choose this device for future practice.
conclusionStudents performed better with and preferred the Arclight ophthalmoscope. The Arclight could be considered as a suitable alternative to the TO used for training medical students.
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.