Cargando…

Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial

Objective  The aim of the study is to compare performance and ease-of-use (EOU) of optic disk assessment using a smartphone direct ophthalmoscope attachment (D-EYE) to the gold standard direct ophthalmoscope (DO). Design  The type of study involved is prospective, randomized, crossover, and educatio...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Curtis, Rachel, Xu, Mark, Liu, Daisy, Kwok, Jason, Hopman, Wilma, Irrcher, Isabella, Baxter, Stephanie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 2021
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9928112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37388835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1736438
_version_ 1784888587764891648
author Curtis, Rachel
Xu, Mark
Liu, Daisy
Kwok, Jason
Hopman, Wilma
Irrcher, Isabella
Baxter, Stephanie
author_facet Curtis, Rachel
Xu, Mark
Liu, Daisy
Kwok, Jason
Hopman, Wilma
Irrcher, Isabella
Baxter, Stephanie
author_sort Curtis, Rachel
collection PubMed
description Objective  The aim of the study is to compare performance and ease-of-use (EOU) of optic disk assessment using a smartphone direct ophthalmoscope attachment (D-EYE) to the gold standard direct ophthalmoscope (DO). Design  The type of study involved is prospective, randomized, crossover, and educational trial. Participants  The participants involved were first year medical students inexperienced in ophthalmoscopy. Methods  Optic disks of standardized and volunteer patients were examined using the D-EYE and a conventional DO. Optic disk identification, EOU ratings of the devices, self-reported confidence level in their examination with the devices, and estimation of vertical cup-to-disk ratio (VCDR) were compared. Analyses included Chi-square tests, independent samples t -tests, correlations, and multivariable linear regression. Results  Forty-four medical students voluntarily participated in the study. Students using the DO required more attempts (3.57 vs. 2.69, p  = 0.010) and time (197.00 vs. 168.02 seconds, p  = 0.043) to match the patient's fundus to the correct photograph. Overall EOU between the devices (6.40 vs. 4.79, p  < 0.001) and overall confidence in examination (5.65 vs. 4.49, p  = 0.003) were greater when using the D-EYE. There were no statistically significant differences in accuracy of VCDR estimations between the two ophthalmoscopes. Conclusion  Smartphone ophthalmoscopy could offer additional learning opportunities in medical education and may be considered in clinical practice by non-specialist physicians given its greater EOU and increased success in visualizing the optic disk.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9928112
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-99281122023-06-29 Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial Curtis, Rachel Xu, Mark Liu, Daisy Kwok, Jason Hopman, Wilma Irrcher, Isabella Baxter, Stephanie J Acad Ophthalmol (2017) Objective  The aim of the study is to compare performance and ease-of-use (EOU) of optic disk assessment using a smartphone direct ophthalmoscope attachment (D-EYE) to the gold standard direct ophthalmoscope (DO). Design  The type of study involved is prospective, randomized, crossover, and educational trial. Participants  The participants involved were first year medical students inexperienced in ophthalmoscopy. Methods  Optic disks of standardized and volunteer patients were examined using the D-EYE and a conventional DO. Optic disk identification, EOU ratings of the devices, self-reported confidence level in their examination with the devices, and estimation of vertical cup-to-disk ratio (VCDR) were compared. Analyses included Chi-square tests, independent samples t -tests, correlations, and multivariable linear regression. Results  Forty-four medical students voluntarily participated in the study. Students using the DO required more attempts (3.57 vs. 2.69, p  = 0.010) and time (197.00 vs. 168.02 seconds, p  = 0.043) to match the patient's fundus to the correct photograph. Overall EOU between the devices (6.40 vs. 4.79, p  < 0.001) and overall confidence in examination (5.65 vs. 4.49, p  = 0.003) were greater when using the D-EYE. There were no statistically significant differences in accuracy of VCDR estimations between the two ophthalmoscopes. Conclusion  Smartphone ophthalmoscopy could offer additional learning opportunities in medical education and may be considered in clinical practice by non-specialist physicians given its greater EOU and increased success in visualizing the optic disk. Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc. 2021-12-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9928112/ /pubmed/37388835 http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1736438 Text en The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ ) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License, which permits unrestricted reproduction and distribution, for non-commercial purposes only; and use and reproduction, but not distribution, of adapted material for non-commercial purposes only, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Curtis, Rachel
Xu, Mark
Liu, Daisy
Kwok, Jason
Hopman, Wilma
Irrcher, Isabella
Baxter, Stephanie
Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial
title Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial
title_full Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial
title_fullStr Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial
title_full_unstemmed Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial
title_short Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial
title_sort smartphone compatible versus conventional ophthalmoscope: a randomized crossover educational trial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9928112/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37388835
http://dx.doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1736438
work_keys_str_mv AT curtisrachel smartphonecompatibleversusconventionalophthalmoscopearandomizedcrossovereducationaltrial
AT xumark smartphonecompatibleversusconventionalophthalmoscopearandomizedcrossovereducationaltrial
AT liudaisy smartphonecompatibleversusconventionalophthalmoscopearandomizedcrossovereducationaltrial
AT kwokjason smartphonecompatibleversusconventionalophthalmoscopearandomizedcrossovereducationaltrial
AT hopmanwilma smartphonecompatibleversusconventionalophthalmoscopearandomizedcrossovereducationaltrial
AT irrcherisabella smartphonecompatibleversusconventionalophthalmoscopearandomizedcrossovereducationaltrial
AT baxterstephanie smartphonecompatibleversusconventionalophthalmoscopearandomizedcrossovereducationaltrial