ArticleEye (London, England)2022
A simple eye model for objectively assessing the competency of direct ophthalmoscopy.
Article in Eye (London, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Simulation models in direct ophthalmoscopy education: a systematic review.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation of medical student performance and satisfaction of simulator-based direct ophthalmoscopy training using a new refractive adjustment fundoscopic examination simulator-ICEyeModel: a comparative randomised crossover study.BMC medical education · 2025Trial
- Smartphone ophthalmoscope as a tool in teaching direct ophthalmoscopy: a crossover randomized controlled trial.Medical education online · 2023Trial
- Generative AI in medical education: feasibility and educational value of LLM-generated clinical cases with MCQs.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Comparative Performance Evaluation of Large Language Models and Human Teachers in Answering Optometry Questions from Medical Undergraduates.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDirect ophthalmoscopy is an important investigative technology not only for ophthalmologists, but also for general practitioners and other specialists. The purpose of this study was to develop a simple and robust eye model for effective and objective assessment of ophthalmoscopic competency.
methodsA series of eye models were assembled using commonly available materials, including 26-mm-diameter double-hemispherical brown plastic balls and convex lenses. A 6-mm circular opening was drilled on one hemisphere as a pupil behind which the lens was glued to provide the refractive component. Ten pieces of letters were placed on the inner surface of the other hemisphere. Ophthalmoscopic skills of ophthalmologist residents were first subjectively assessed using a checklist by two tutors and then objectively by using the eye models. The discrimination index was calculated to evaluate the effectiveness of assessment. Finally, a feedback questionnaire was completed.
resultsTotally 76 residents were recruited. The checklist score was 9.25 ± 0.47, with a discrimination index of 0.11. The model-assessment score was 4.24 ± 3.10, with a discrimination index of 0.79. There was no correlation between the checklist score and model scores (r = 0.133, P = 0.251). Two-thirds of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that model-assessment could reflect the ability to visualize the fundus.
conclusionsWe have developed simple eye models to assess the competency of ophthalmoscopy with excellent discriminatory power to differentiate competence levels of ophthalmology residents.
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.