ReviewCureus2025
A Systematic Review of the Adequacy of Undergraduate Ophthalmology Education in the United Kingdom.
Review in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ophthalmology is a vital yet often underemphasized part of undergraduate medical training in the United Kingdom (UK). Despite the high occurrence of eye-related presentations in clinical settings, evidence shows variation in teaching exposure, content, and assessment across medical schools. This systematic review, registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO)(registration number: CRD42025110189), examined undergraduate ophthalmology education in the UK. Comprehensive searches were carried out in Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, Excerpta Medica database (Embase), and the Cochrane Library up to May 2025. Eligible studies, published from 2000 onwards, evaluated ophthalmology teaching at the undergraduate level. Data extraction and thematic analysis were independently performed by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third. Quality assessment used the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist, Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2), and Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool, depending on study design. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria, including national surveys, interventional trials, and observational research. Ten major themes emerged: limited curriculum time, curriculum variability, low student confidence in fundoscopy, misdiagnosis in primary care, positive responses to e-learning and blended learning, equipment and supervision limitations, assessment-driven engagement, low curriculum priority, and lack of national guidance. Evidence showed significant variation in teaching duration (three to 15 days), low self-reported competence, and the benefits of blended and e-learning methods for engagement and satisfaction. Undergraduate ophthalmology education in the UK remains fragmented and inconsistent in priority. Standardising curricula, mandating minimum placement durations, incorporating ophthalmology into summative assessments, and expanding blended learning could improve competence and ensure graduates meet essential ophthalmic care standards.
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.