Trial reportMedical education online2023
Smartphone ophthalmoscope as a tool in teaching direct ophthalmoscopy: a crossover randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Medical education online, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generative AI in medical education: feasibility and educational value of LLM-generated clinical cases with MCQs.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Utility of Portable Fundus Camera in Teaching Direct Ophthalmoscopy to Medical Students.The clinical teacher · 2025Article
- Article
- Application of smartphone ophthalmoscope in ophthalmic clinical practice and teaching.International journal of ophthalmology · 2025Review
- Ophthalmology inpatient consultations: an Irish tertiary hospital experience.Eye (London, England) · 2024Article
- 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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the effectiveness of smartphone ophthalmoscope (SO) in teaching ophthalmoscopy, compared with direct ophthalmoscope (DO). In this cross-over study, 45 final-year medical students attending sessions at a single institution were randomly allocated to two groups (A and B). Both groups attended two training sessions. In the first session, Group A students were taught ophthalmoscopy using DO and Group B students using SO. In the second session, the training sessions were crossed over. A series of eye models with 10 letters placed on the inner surface were designed to assess the students' skill on ophthalmoscopy. Students performed ophthalmoscopy on the eye models, recorded their findings, and completed a questionnaire of feedback on DO and SO. The main outcome measure was the score of ophthalmoscopy, assessed by the student correctly recording each letter (score 1 for each letter). For Group A, the mean score of ophthalmoscopy on the eye model using DO and SO was 3.9±2.4 and 8.2±2.2, respectively. For Group B, the mean score of ophthalmoscopy on the eye model using SO and DO 8.7±1.8 and 5.7±3.5 . Students scored significantly higher in ophthalmoscopy when using SO than DO (
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.