ArticleJournal of clinical monitoring and computing2021
Comparative study of silicone membrane simulator and animal eye models for sub-Tenon's block.
Article in Journal of clinical monitoring and computing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare and assess silicone membrane-based sub-Tenon's block (STB) simulator and animal eye model (goat's eye) for practicing STB in terms of anatomical similarity and feel of texture of eye layers. The study included 34 participants (26 learners and 8 consultants) from tertiary ophthalmic centres. The participants were divided into groups A and B. Group A performed STB on the goat's eyes before using the silicone membrane simulator. Group B performed STB on the simulator and further proceeded to the goat's eye. Participants had to rate the anatomical similarity and feel of the texture for the simulator model on a scale of 0-10 and share their preference between the two models. In group A, the scores given to the simulator model and the feel of texture of layers were 8.05 ± 0.88 and 7.97 ± 1.07, respectively, and the scores given to the animal model and the feel of texture of layers were 8.11 ± 0.97 and 8.21 ± 0.88, respectively. Group B participants scored the simulator model and feel of texture of layers with 8.13 ± 0.95 and 8.25 ± 0.99, respectively. Overall, 89% participants preferred the simulator; the reasons included ease of usage, helpful warning system, absence of biological waste, and facility for repeatable training. The study validated anatomical accuracy, preference, and ability of usage of the STB simulator. For broader usage, further study involving higher number of participants is recommended.
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.