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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |