Abstract
Background/objectives
To compare skill acquisition of the new, cost-effective Arclight ophthalmoscope, with the traditional ophthalmoscope (TO), in medical students with no prior experience of ophthalmoscopy.
Subjects/methods
University of Dundee medical students took part in a cross-over trial. Students were divided into two groups and were alternately taught each device using a video tutorial. In period one, Group A was taught the TO first; Group B was taught the Arclight. They were then assessed using simulated objective, structured, clinical, examinations, examining four model heads with lettered fundal photographs of varying sizes of font. Groups crossed over following a 2-week washout period and were taught the second device and reassessed. A questionnaire was distributed to ascertain students’ opinions and preferences.
Results
Forty medical students participated. Overall, 92.5% of students performed better with the Arclight, irrespective of cross-over trial period. The mean difference in score in period one of the cross-over trial was 16.77 (95% CI: 11.63–21.93), with students performing better with the Arclight (p < 0.0001). The mean difference in score in period two was 8.02 (95% CI: 4.52–11.52), with students performing better with the Arclight (p < 0.0001). In addition, performance with the TO improved by 52.9% following initial exposure to the Arclight. The Arclight was the preferred device by 82.5% of students, and 82.5% of students would choose this device for future practice.
Conclusion
Students performed better with and preferred the Arclight ophthalmoscope. The Arclight could be considered as a suitable alternative to the TO used for training medical students.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Megbelayin EO, Asana EU, Nkanga GD, Duke RE, Ibanga AA, Etim AB, et al. Evaluation of Competence of medical students in performing direct ophthalmoscopy. Niger J Ophthalmol. 2014;22:73.
BMJ. Teaching of ophthalmology to medical students. Br Med J. 1923;2:147. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2317152&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 13 Jan 2020.
Mandal N, Harborne P, Bradley S, Salmon N, Holder R, Denniston AK, et al. Comparison of two ophthalmoscopes for direct ophthalmoscopy. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2011;39:30–6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20796260. Accessed 12 Jan 2020.
Fan JC, Sherwin T, McGhee CNJ. Teaching of ophthalmology in undergraduate curricula: a survey of Australasian and Asian medical schools. Clin Experiment Ophthalmol. 2007;35:310–7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17539781. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Pubrick R, Chong N. Direct ophthalmoscopy should be taught to undergraduate medical students—no. Eye. 2015;29:990–1. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.91.
Williams WJ. Return of the direct—ArclightTM | Ophthalmoscope & Otoscope. http://arclightscope.com/2013/07/return-of-the-direct/. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Levy A, Churchill AJ. Training and testing competence in direct ophthalmoscopy. Med Educ. 2003;37:483–4. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01502_13.x.
McCarthy DM, Leonard HR, Vozenilek JA. A new tool for testing and training ophthalmoscopic skills. J Grad Med Educ. 2012;4:92–6. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=3312543&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Ranking WH, Radcliffe CB, Stone WD. The half-yearly abstract of the medical sciences: being a digest of British and Continental medicine, and of the progress of medicine and the collateral sciences, Vol 41, J Churchill. 1845:328. https://books.google.com/books?id=CY-7TmES2OwC&pgis=1. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Schneiderman H. The funduscopic examination. Butterworths; 1990. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK221/. Accessed 7 Mar 2016.
Bradley P. A simple eye model to objectively assess ophthalmoscopic skills of medical students. Med Educ. 1999;33:592–5. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00370.x. Accessed 7 Jan 2020.
Yusuf IH, Salmon JF, Patel CK. Direct ophthalmoscopy should be taught to undergraduate medical students—yes. Eye. 2015;29:987–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.90. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Royal College of Ophthalmologists. “Eyes & Vision Curriculum” for undergraduate and foundation doctors. https://www.rcophth.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Undergraduate-and-Foundation-doctors-curriculum.pdf. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Mackay DD, Garza PS, Bruce BB, Newman NJ, Biousse V. The demise of direct ophthalmoscopy: a modern clinical challenge. Neurol Clin Pract. 2015;5:150–7. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4404284&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract. Accessed 10 Jan 2020.
Williams WJ. Arclight | Ophthalmoscope & Otoscope. Arclight Medical. http://arclightscope.com/. Accessed 11 Jan 2020.
University of Dundee. Ophthalmology system student handout. 2016. https://medblogs.dundee.ac.uk/ophthalmology-sip/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2016/01/Student-Handout-Mini-Guide-2016_word.pdf. Accessed 7 Mar 2016.
Shuttleworth M. Research bias—experimenter bias. Explorable. 2016. https://explorable.com/research-bias. Accessed 9 Jan 2020.
Kilkpatrick, R. Comparing the accuracy of the Arclight ophthalmoscope to the direct ophthalmoscope, Dundee, Scotland. Personal communication to Monica Hytiris, Dec 2015. (Unpublished).
Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic interventions. 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org/front_page.htm. Accessed 8 Jan.
Curtin F, Altman DG, Elbourne D. Meta-analysis combining parallel and cross-over clinical trials. I: continuous outcomes. Stat Med. 2002;21:2131–44. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/sim.1205.
Mottow-Lippa L. Ophthalmology in the Medical School Curriculum: reestablishing our value and effecting change. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:1235–36.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.012.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge Professor Jon Dowell, Robert Smith, Mark Smith, Richard Barnes, Peter Davey and Simon Ogston for their support in their various fields.
Funding
Funding for the purchase of the Arclight ophthalmoscopes was provided by the University of Dundee. No other funding was required for this research project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hytiris, M.L., Fioratou, E. & Gillan, S.N. The Arclight vs. traditional ophthalmoscope: a cross-over trial. Eye 35, 831–837 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-0972-3
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-020-0972-3
