Included studies report consistent weakness in advanced examination skills such as slit-lamp use and ophthalmoscopy¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesisr1·q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · recheck by 2030: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Primary studies report low proficiency in ophthalmoscopy (41% in Divya et al.; 44.8% slit-lamp in Noble et al.) despite higher proficiency in visual acuity testing. → Luksanaporn K 2025
Evidence¶
Luksanaporn K 2025¶
Luksanaporn K, Naruporn K, Sasikarnt L. (2025). Global disparities in ophthalmology education and alignment with international council of ophthalmology guidelines among medical students: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medical Education. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-025-07012-1
q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r1
Cross-sectional survey data synthesized in the review's results (Table 1); the review reports "proficiency in visual acuity (93.3%) but weakness in ophthalmoscopy (41%)". Percentages are descriptive, no effect size printed.
"Divya et al. showed proficiency in visual acuity (93.3%) but weakness in ophthalmoscopy (41%)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Deuchler et al. found learning occurs with EyeSi simulator training but is higher when combined with an online theory platform — related
- Chan et al. found physical-controller VR examination has higher ease of use and lower cognitive load than hand-tracking gestures — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
status |
review |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-31 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.