Claims

Simulation training improves fundus identification rate and time compared with simulated-patient-only training in a randomised trial

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

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? In Wu et al.'s randomised controlled trial, students trained with a 3D printed eye model plus simulated patients had improved fundus identification rate and time compared with simulated patients alone. → Dutt Deepaysh DCS 2025

Evidence

Dutt Deepaysh DCS 2025

Dutt Deepaysh DCS, Hohnen Harry, Kulshrestha Subham, Razavi Hessom. (2025). Simulation models in direct ophthalmoscopy education: a systematic review. Canadian Medical Education Journal. https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79989

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Randomised controlled trial of 92 medical students reviewed within the systematic review, comparing eye-model-plus-simulated-patient training with simulated-patient-only training. The review reports that "training with an eye model improved fundus identification rate and time."

"Wu et al.50 conducted a randomised control trial where students trained on either simulated patients and an eye model, or only on a simulated patient using a 3D printed eye model, and found that training with an eye model improved fundus identification rate and time."

Discussion

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.