ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of a novel multi-purpose ophthalmic block simulator amongst ophthalmology trainees.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Training to perform ophthalmic blocks is often done on actual patients by trial and error. Higher complication rates and poor patient experience occur from suboptimal blocks. We assess the efficacy of a novel ophthalmic block simulator via a pilot study. The production process involved 3D-printing and improvisation with readily available materials that provided excellent reproducibility of a real-life experience. A prospective pilot study on ophthalmology trainees in a single centre via a 3-pronged approach before and after a supervised training workshop on the simulator was performed. Outcomes include procedural confidence, competence, accurate needle positioning during peribulbar block and degree of post-procedural akinesia. There were significant improvements in trainee self-ranked confidence (7.57 ± 1.27 to 8.57 ± 1.13, p = 0.018) and competence (7.71 ± 0.95 to 8.43 ± 0.98, p = 0.047) (n = 7). There was improvement in consultant-rated akinesia, competence and confidence (38.1% ± 29.9% to 34.8% ± 20.7% p = 0.766, 7.63 ± 1.51 to 7.90 ± 0.66 p = 0.585, and 7.57±1.64 to 7.80±0.92 p = 0.698) (18 assessments pre-workshop, 20 assessments post-workshop), and mean accuracy in blocks performed on the simulator after training with the simulator (4.17 ± 1.27 to 4.83 ± 0.389, n = 12, p = 0.054) although all these were statistically insignificant. In summary, this is a useful, portable and low-cost ophthalmic block simulator that allows trainees to gain confidence and competence in performing these procedures.
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.