Trial reportBMC medical education2025
A comparative study of irrigation techniques and the development of a self-serve training model for ophthalmology residents.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLacrimal irrigation is a fundamental skill for diagnosing and managing lacrimal diseases. This study evaluates two lacrimal irrigation techniques and introduces a haptic-visual integrated self-serve training model to enhance skill acquisition among novice ophthalmology residents.
methodsNinety-two ophthalmology residents were randomized into Group A (n = 47) and Group B (n = 45). Both groups completed an 8-hour training program comprising theoretical instruction, demonstrations, and hands-on practice. Group A provided feedback to refine the training model, which was subsequently implemented in Group B1 (n = 23), while Group B2 (n = 22) served as the control. Outcomes were assessed through skill evaluations and post-training questionnaires measuring confidence scores and perceived efficacy.
resultsIn Group A, 70.2% of participants preferred Technique 1 for its perceived ease of use, while 29.8% favored Technique 2 for pressurized irrigation scenarios (p < 0.05). Key barriers to proficiency included the absence of suitable training models (63.8%) and psychological anxiety (25.5%). In Group B, participants using the training model (Group B1) demonstrated significantly higher confidence scores compared to Group B2 (8.4 ± 1.2 vs. 6.1 ± 1.5, p < 0.05). Although skill assessment scores showed a positive trend in Group B1 (80.7 ± 8.3 vs. 76.8 ± 9.1), the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
conclusionBoth lacrimal irrigation techniques are equally accessible to novices, with Technique 2 offering advantages in pressurized irrigation. The self-serve training model significantly enhances procedural confidence and addresses critical training barriers, including resource limitations and psychological safety. Future studies should validate these findings in larger cohorts and refine the model to incorporate enhanced simulation techniques and dynamic physiological feedback.
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.