Rachel Curtis, Mark Xu, Daisy Liu, Jason Kwok, Wilma Hopman, Isabella Irrcher, Stephanie Baxter
{"title":"Smartphone Compatible versus Conventional Ophthalmoscope: A Randomized Crossover Educational Trial.","authors":"Rachel Curtis, Mark Xu, Daisy Liu, Jason Kwok, Wilma Hopman, Isabella Irrcher, Stephanie Baxter","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1736438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective</b> 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). <b>Design</b> The type of study involved is prospective, randomized, crossover, and educational trial. <b>Participants</b> The participants involved were first year medical students inexperienced in ophthalmoscopy. <b>Methods</b> 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 <i>t</i> -tests, correlations, and multivariable linear regression. <b>Results</b> Forty-four medical students voluntarily participated in the study. Students using the DO required more attempts (3.57 vs. 2.69, <i>p</i> = 0.010) and time (197.00 vs. 168.02 seconds, <i>p</i> = 0.043) to match the patient's fundus to the correct photograph. Overall EOU between the devices (6.40 vs. 4.79, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and overall confidence in examination (5.65 vs. 4.49, <i>p</i> = 0.003) were greater when using the D-EYE. There were no statistically significant differences in accuracy of VCDR estimations between the two ophthalmoscopes. <b>Conclusion</b> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73579,"journal":{"name":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","volume":"13 2","pages":"e270-e276"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/ce/33/10-1055-s-0041-1736438.PMC9928112.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of academic ophthalmology (2017)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1736438","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
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.
目的比较智能手机直接检眼镜附件(D-EYE)与金标准直接检眼镜(DO)视盘评估的性能和易用性(EOU)。研究类型为前瞻性、随机、交叉和教育试验。研究对象为没有眼科检查经验的一年级医学生。方法采用D-EYE和常规DO对标准化患者和自愿患者的视盘进行检查。比较了视盘识别、设备的EOU评级、他们使用设备检查时的自我报告信心水平以及垂直杯盘比(VCDR)的估计。分析包括卡方检验、独立样本t检验、相关性和多变量线性回归。结果44名医学生自愿参与本研究。使用DO的学生需要更多的尝试(3.57 vs. 2.69, p = 0.010)和时间(197.00 vs. 168.02秒,p = 0.043)来匹配患者的眼底和正确的照片。使用D-EYE时,设备之间的总体EOU (6.40 vs. 4.79, p p = 0.003)更大。两种检眼镜的VCDR估计准确度无统计学差异。结论智能手机检眼镜可以为医学教育提供额外的学习机会,非专科医生可以考虑在临床实践中使用智能手机检眼镜,因为它具有更高的EOU和更高的视盘显像成功率。