SynthesisCanadian medical education journal2025
Simulation models in direct ophthalmoscopy education: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Canadian medical education journal, 2025. 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.
- Sensorized Vascular High-Fidelity Physical Simulator for Robot-Assisted Surgery Training: A Multisite Pilot Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Authorship in medical education.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
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
Background: An ever-increasing range of simulation devices are available for direct ophthalmoscopy. However, the effectiveness of simulation design and components have not been evaluated. This systematic review aims to describe and evaluate direct ophthalmoscopy simulation models and highlight components that have been found to be effective, and challenges faced when using simulation models. Methods: A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to the PRISMA statement in four online databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science. Citation searching using Google Scholar and Citationchaser was also undertaken. Validity and effectiveness were assessed using a validated scale based on Messick's modern validity framework and McGaghie's proposed levels of simulation-based translational outcomes respectively. Results: A total of 1,275 titles and abstracts were screened. A total of 37 studies were included in the final analysis. Physical models, digital models and virtual reality direct ophthalmoscopy models were described in studies. A plastic cannister design was the most common in the literature, followed by a sphere with a painted fundus and the EyeSi Direct Ophthalmoscope Simulator (VRmagic, GmbH, Mannheim, Germany). Simulation was effective in its ability to allow students to engage in repeated practice without patient discomfort. The lack of realism was the most noted limitation of simulation practice. Conclusion: While more robust evidence is needed to support simulation design efficacy in direct ophthalmoscopy, simulation-based teaching of direct ophthalmoscopy will likely be increasingly effective as technological advancements support improved realism and affordability.
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.