Trial reportBMC ophthalmology2024
Randomized trial comparing the effects of a 3D head-up system and microscope eyepiece-assisted simulated vitrectomy with intraocular illumination on the ocular surface of an operator.
Trial report in BMC ophthalmology, 2024. 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.
- Three-Dimensional Digital Visualization System-Assisted Vitrectomy for Infectious Endophthalmitis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2026Article
- Unraveling the effects of serial intravitreal Aflibercept injections on the ocular surface of patients with glaucoma and retinal comorbidity.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the effects of a 3D head-up system and microscope eyepiece-assisted simulated vitrectomy intraocular illumination on the ocular surface of an operator.
methodsThis was a prospective randomized controlled study. According to the application system, thirty ophthalmic operators (60 eyes) were randomly divided into 3D and eyepiece groups. Under different intensities of intraocular illumination, operators in both groups viewed the fundus model through a 3D display screen or microscopic eyepiece for 2 h. Objective examinations and a subjective symptom questionnaire were used immediately after the test to evaluate the ocular surface of the operators. Objective examinations included nonintrusion tear meniscus height (NIKTMH), nonintrusion break-up time (NIKBUT), and bulbar redness and strip meniscometry tube (SMTube) measurements. Statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS 26.0 software.
resultsAfter the test, the NIKTMH, NIKBUT and SMTube measurements decreased; however, the degree of change varied among the groups of different systems. The differences between the 3D group and the eyepiece group in NIKTMH measurements, SMTube measurements, subjective symptom scores (eye dryness, difficulty focusing, and cervical pain), and light intensity reaching the ocular surface of the operators were statistically significant (P < 0.05). All of the objective and subjective tests showed that the 3D group had fewer effects on the NIKTMH and SMTube measurements, and the subjective comfort of the 3D group was greater.
conclusionFor both 3D screens and eyepieces, simulated vitrectomy with intraocular illumination for two hours can lead to discomfort and abnormalities in the operator's ocular surface; however, these abnormalities are less severe in the 3D group.
trial registrationThis trial was registered on December 22, 2022, at the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry with NO. ChiCTR2200066989.
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.