ArticleInternational ophthalmology2022
Prospective evaluation of medical student accuracy conducting direct ophthalmoscopy with an unmodified iPhone X.
Article in International ophthalmology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eyesi direct ophthalmoscope simulator: an effective training tool for medical undergraduates.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate fundus examination accuracy of medical students when using an unmodified iPhone X or a direct ophthalmoscope in comparison to a staff ophthalmologist's retinal examination.
methodsIn this prospective comparative analysis, patients underwent dilated fundus examination by novice medical trainees using either an unmodified iPhone X or standard direct ophthalmoscope. The primary outcome was the mean difference and degree of agreement in cup-to-disc ratio between student examination and the staff ophthalmologist's cup-to-disc observation.
resultsA total of 18 medical students conducted 230 retinal examinations, 117 with the iPhone X and 113 with the direct ophthalmoscope. A greater proportion of students were unable to report cup-to-disc ratio using the iPhone X (81.2%) vs direct ophthalmoscope (30.1%). Student examination of cup-to-disc ratio led to a systematic bias (95% limits of agreement) of + 0.16 (-0.22 to + 0.54) and + 0.10 (-0.36 to + 0.56) with the iPhone X and direct ophthalmoscope, respectively. iPhone X and direct ophthalmoscope student observation concordance for optic disc colour (88.7 and 82.4%, respectively) and contour (68.3 and 74.2%, respectively) demonstrated low agreement with staff ophthalmologist findings. Student iPhone X observations demonstrated lower agreement with staff findings compared to direct ophthalmoscope observations for spontaneous venous pulsations (Cohen's Kappa = -0.044 vs 0.099).
conclusionAmongst medical trainees, optic disc visualization using an unmodified iPhone X was inferior to the direct ophthalmoscope. When able to visualize the optic nerve head, there was no significant difference in reported cup-to-disc ratio between modalities. However, both modalities demonstrated poor reliability in comparison to staff ophthalmologist findings.
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.