ArticleBMC medical education2023
Creating ophthalmology experiences in undergraduate medical education: pilot of a cased-based learning ophthalmology tool.
Article in BMC medical education, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application effect and teaching evaluation of case-based learning combined with ChatGPT in ophthalmology clinical teaching.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Ophthalmology focus for the undergraduate student: a generic overview and outlook on global perspectives of experiential learning at medical schools.Eye (London, England) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Undergraduate Learning in an Ophthalmology Rotation: A Study Using Virtual Questionnaires.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate medical student perceptions of a novel ophthalmology resource delivered through facilitated workshops in the core clerkship curriculum.
methodsWe created www.2020sim.com, a free case-based learning (CBL) ophthalmology tool, adapted from NephSIM (www.nephsim.com). The tool was first piloted with the internal medicine (IM) residents. After confirming a need, we focused on undergraduate medical education (UME) by expanding the 20/20 SIM content and partnering with the neurology (pilot academic year [AY] 2020-2021) and pediatric clerkships (pilot AY 2021-2022) to deliver a facilitated one-hour ophthalmology workshop within each clerkship's didactic curriculum. We evaluated the tool using pre- and post-surveys and knowledge assessments.
resultsOf 80 IM residents, 33 (41.3%) completed the needs assessment. Of the 25 residents who attended the workshop, 23 (92.0%) completed the exit survey. IM residents reported discomfort in several ophthalmology domains (9 of 14 rated mean score < 3.0), confirming a need. Most (n = 21/23, 91.3%) rated the tool as good/excellent. Of 145 neurology clerkship students, 125 (86.2%) and at least 88 (60.7%) students completed the pre- and post-test/exit surveys, respectively. On average, participants highly rated the tool, perceiving 20/20 SIM to be relevant to their education [4.1 (0.8)]. Mean pre- to post-test knowledge scores increased from 7.5 to 8.5/10.0 points (p < 0.001). Of the 136 pediatric clerkship students, 67 (49.3%) and 51 (37.5%) completed the pre- and post-surveys, respectively. Respondents perceived increased comfort with ophthalmology topics after the facilitated workshop [3.8 (0.8)]. Mean pre- to post-test knowledge scores trended from 1.8 to 2.0/5.0 points (p = 0.30). Collectively, 20/139 (14.4%) of exit survey respondents visited www.2020sim.com within 1 month after the workshop.
conclusionAfter identifying areas of greatest need with residents, we partnered with core clerkships to deliver cross-disciplinary ophthalmology content in UME. We found high engagement with 20/20 SIM, with trends toward increased knowledge.
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.