ArticleBMC medical education2026
How past European Board of Ophthalmology (EBO) candidates acquired theoretical knowledge: an EBO survey.
Article in BMC medical education, 2026. 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
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe European Board of Ophthalmology (EBO), whose mission is to guarantee high standards of care in ophthalmology, has assessed residency training quality for over 30 years through the EBO Diploma (EBOD) examination, undertaken by residents and certified ophthalmologists from the 27 European Union member states as well as Norway, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and Türkiye. Preparation for the EBOD is largely self-directed, conducted alongside demanding clinical duties, and relies mainly on asynchronous learning. This study aimed to analyse trends in the use of learning tools among European residents and ophthalmologists preparing for the EBOD and factors associated with their choice of study resources.
methodsA 27-item online survey was distributed to past (2016 to 2024) EBOD candidates. Data collected included demographics, study habits, learning resources, meeting attendance, and financial support. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to analyse associations between use of learning tools and gender, examination year, clinical workload, study time, English proficiency, and country of training.
resultsA total of 633 responses (response rate, 10%) from 31 countries were analysed. Book use was high (92%) and stable over time. Respondents who sat the examination before 2020 were more likely to read journal articles (p < 0.0001, OR 2.47, 95%CI 1.56-3.92) and less likely to use social media (p = 0.002, OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.41-0.82), websites (p = 0.018, OR 0.51, 95%CI 0.29-0.88), and smartphone applications (p = 0.019, OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.47-0.94). Candidates reporting fewer than the median of study hours were less likely to read journal articles (p = 0.0002, OR 0.49, 95%CI 0.34-0.72). Candidates receiving financial support attended international meetings more frequently than those without support (p < 0.0001). Differences in digital tool use and funding sources were observed among the five most represented countries (France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and Türkiye).
conclusionsEBOD candidates demonstrate increasing engagement with digital learning tools. Associations between learning resource use, examination year, study time, and country of training highlight the need for adaptable educational strategies reflecting evolving technologies and diverse learner profiles.
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.