ArticleBMC medical education2024
Comparison of three-dimensional heads-up system versus traditional microscopic system in medical education for vitreoretinal surgeries: a prospective study.
Article in BMC medical education, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Morphofunctional Outcomes of 3D Heads-Up Visualization Versus Standard Operating Microscopy in Idiopathic Epiretinal Membrane Surgery: A Prospective Randomized Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Teaching ophthalmic microsurgical skills: conventional microscopy versus heads-up visualization.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Comparison of three-dimensional surgical system versus binocular microscope for implantable Collamer lens implantation: a randomized clinical trial.International journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- The Metaverse in Ophthalmology: Application and Perceived Benefits, Challenges, Realistic Expectations, and Future Outlook.Journal of current ophthalmologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the value and efficiency of the three-dimensional (3D) heads-up surgical system and traditional microscopic (TM) system in teaching and learning vitreoretinal surgeries.
methodsTwenty ophthalmologists and scrub nurses were recruited as teachers, and 45 junior ophthalmology residents and trainee doctors, trainee nurses, and medical students were recruited as observers. Each teacher and observer were assigned to both a 3D-assisted and TM-assisted vitreoretinal surgery and then asked to complete satisfaction questionnaires for both surgical systems at the end of each surgery.
resultsThe 3D heads-up surgical system was rated significantly higher in most of the subscales and overall satisfaction score by both teachers and observers (P < 0.05). However, ratings for instrument adjustment were significantly higher in the TM group compared to the 3D group for junior ophthalmology residents and trainee doctors (6.1 ± 1.7 vs. 8.8 ± 1.1, P < 0.001).
conclusionsThe 3D heads-up surgical system has great didactical value in the medical education of vitreoretinal surgeries, but it is important to consider the specific needs of different learners when choosing between the two systems.
trial registrationNot applicable.
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.