ArticlePloS one2022
Accuracy of vertical cup-to-disc ratio discrimination among clinical optometry trainees with different years of clinical experience.
Article in PloS one, 2022. 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.
- Genomic structural equation Modeling analysis of glaucoma Endophenotypes: investigating genetic architecture and non-intraocular pressure mechanisms.Human molecular genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate evaluation of the cup-to-disc ratio is crucial for optometrists and may be influenced by their clinical experience. The study's objective was to compare the thresholds for discriminating vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) between years 2, 3, and 4 clinical optometry trainees.
methodsOne hundred fundus photos with various VCDR sizes were selected from a clinic database. The median VCDR (0.43) photo was assigned as the standard, while the other 99 were assigned as the test photos. The participant's task was to discriminate using a 2-alternate-forced-choice paradigm whether the test photos' VCDR were larger or smaller than the standard VCDR. Data were fit with a Weibull function, and three discrimination thresholds were determined: the point of subjective equality (PSE), the range of VCDR uncertainty, and the ability to judge VCDR that was 0.1 unit larger than the standard photo.
resultsYear 4 trainees had better VCDR discrimination thresholds. However, the difference between the three participant groups was not statistically different for all measurements (PSE: F(2,27) = 0.43, p = 0.657; VCDR uncertainty range: F(2,27) = 0.12, p = 0.887), and thresholds for correctly discriminating VCDR 0.1 larger than the standard photo's VCDR: F(2,27) = 0.69, p = 0.512).
conclusionAlthough Year 4 optometry trainees performed slightly better at estimating VCDR than their Year 3 and Year 2 peers, the number of years of clinical experiences did not significantly affect their VCDR discrimination thresholds when 2-dimensional fundus photos were used as stimuli.
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.