Modèles de simulation dans l'enseignement de l'ophtalmoscopie directe : revue systématique
DOI :
https://doi.org/10.36834/cmej.79989Résumé
Contexte : Il existe une gamme toujours plus large de dispositifs de simulation pour l'ophtalmoscopie directe. Cependant, l'efficacité de la conception et des composants des simulations n'a pas été évaluée. Cette revue systématique vise à décrire et à évaluer les modèles de simulation d'ophtalmoscopie directe, à mettre en évidence les composants qui se sont révélés efficaces et à souligner les défis rencontrés lors de l'utilisation de modèles de simulation.
Méthodes : Une revue systématique de la littérature a été réalisée conformément à la déclaration PRISMA dans quatre bases de données en ligne : Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library et Web of Science. Une recherche de citations à l'aide de Google Scholar et Citationchaser a également été effectuée. La validité et l'efficacité ont été évaluées à l'aide d'une échelle validée basée respectivement sur le cadre de validité moderne de Messick et les niveaux proposés par McGaghie pour les résultats translationnels basés sur la simulation.
Résultats : Au total, 1 275 titres et résumés ont été examinés. Au total, 37 études ont été incluses dans l'analyse finale. Les études décrivaient des modèles physiques, des modèles numériques et des modèles d'ophtalmoscopie directe en réalité virtuelle. La conception d'un boîtier en plastique était la plus courante dans la littérature, suivie d'une sphère avec un fond peint et du simulateur d'ophtalmoscope direct EyeSi (VRmagic, GmbH, Mannheim, Allemagne). La simulation s'est avérée efficace pour permettre aux étudiants de s'exercer de manière répétée sans causer de gêne aux patients. Le manque de réalisme était la limite la plus souvent mentionnée de la pratique de la simulation.
Conclusion : Bien que des preuves plus solides soient nécessaires pour étayer l'efficacité de la conception de la simulation en ophtalmoscopie directe, l'enseignement de l'ophtalmoscopie directe basé sur la simulation sera probablement de plus en plus efficace à mesure que les progrès technologiques permettront d'améliorer le réalisme et l'accessibilité financière.
Téléchargements
Références
1. Vernon S. Eye care and the medical student: where should emphasis be placed in undergraduate ophthalmology? J R Soc Med 1988;81:335-337. https://doi.org/10.1177/014107688808100612
2. Fan JC, Sherwin T, McGhee CN. Teaching of ophthalmology in undergraduate curricula: a survey of Australasian and Asian medical schools. Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2007;35:310-317. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-9071.2006.01414.x
3. Helena B, Miller GC, Henderson J, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2013-14: Sydney University Press, 2014.
4. Gurney SP, Makanjuola T, Kutubi M, Parulekar M, Abbott J. How to use…the direct ophthalmoscope. Archives of Disease in Childhood Education and Practice Edition 2018;103:102. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2016-312378
5. Biousse V, Bruce BB, Newman NJ. Ophthalmoscopy in the 21st century: the 2017 H. Houston Merritt Lecture. Neurol. 2018;90:167-175. https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000004868
6. Bruce BB, Bidot S, Hage R, et al. Fundus Photography vs. Ophthalmoscopy Outcomes in the Emergency Department (FOTO-ED) Phase III: web-based, in-service training of emergency providers. Neuroophthalmol. 2018;42:269-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/01658107.2017.1419368
7. Bruce BB, Lamirel C, Wright DW, et al. Nonmydriatic ocular fundus photography in the emergency department. New England J Med. 2011;364:387-389. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc1009733
8. Wu EH, Fagan MJ, Reinert SE, Diaz JA. Self-confidence in and perceived utility of the physical examination: a comparison of medical students, residents, and faculty internists. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22:1725-30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-007-0409-8
9. Holmboe ES. Faculty and the observation of trainees' clinical skills: problems and opportunities. Acad Med 2004;79:16-22. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200401000-00006
10. Morad Y, Barkana Y, Avni I, Kozer E. Fundus anomalies: what the pediatrician's eye can't see. International J Quality Health Care 2004;16:363-365. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzh065
11. Mottow-Lippa L. Ophthalmology in the medical school curriculum: reestablishing our value and effecting change. Ophthalmol. 2009;116:1235-1236. e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2009.01.012
12. Scott TM, Succar T, Petsoglou C. Ophthalmology teaching in Australian medical schools: a national survey. Med Teach. 2022:1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2072283
13. Gostimir M, Sharma RA, Bhatti A. Status of Canadian undergraduate medical education in ophthalmology. Can J Ophthalmol. 2018;53:474-479. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2017.11.015
14. Hill S, Dennick R, Amoaku W. Present and future of the undergraduate ophthalmology curriculum: a survey of UK medical schools. Int J Med Educ. 2017;8:389. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.59ac.f69b
15. Baylis O, Murray PI, Dayan M. Undergraduate ophthalmology education-a survey of UK medical schools. Med Teach 2011;33:468-471. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.540594
16. Quillen DA, Harper RA, Haik BG. Medical student education in ophthalmology: crisis and opportunity. Ophthalmol. 2005;112:1867-1868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2005.05.005
17. Shuttleworth G, Marsh G. How effective is undergraduate and postgraduate teaching in ophthalmology? Eye 1997;11:744-750. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.1997.189
18. Gupta RR, Lam WC. Medical students' self-confidence in performing direct ophthalmoscopy in clinical training. Can J Ophthalmol 2006;41:169-74. https://doi.org/10.1139/I06-004
19. Lopes Filho JB, Leite RA, Leite DA, Castro ARd, Andrade LS. Avaliação dos conhecimentos oftalmológicos básicos em estudantes de Medicina da Universidade Federal do Piauí. Revista Brasileira de Oftalmologia 2011;70:27-31. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-72802011000100006
20. Schulz C, Moore J, Hassan D, Tamsett E, Smith C. Addressing the 'forgotten art of fundoscopy': evaluation of a novel teaching ophthalmoscope. Eye 2016;30:375-384. https://doi.org/10.1038/eye.2015.238
21. Chen M, Swinney C, Chen M, Bal M, Nakatsuka A. Comparing the utility of the non-mydriatic fundus camera to the direct ophthalmoscope for medical education. Hawai'i J Medicine & Public Health 2015;74:93.
22. Gilmour G, McKivigan J. Evaluating medical students' proficiency with a handheld ophthalmoscope: a pilot study. Adv Med Educ Pract 2016:33-36. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S119440
23. Milani BY, Majdi M, Green W, et al. The use of peer optic nerve photographs for teaching direct ophthalmoscopy. Ophthalmol. 2013;120:761-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2012.09.020
24. Grodin MH, T MARK J, Acree JL, Glaser BM. Ophthalmic surgical training: a curriculum to enhance surgical simulation. Retina 2008;28:1509-1514. https://doi.org/10.1097/IAE.0b013e31818464ff
25. Larsen P, Stoddart H, Griess M. Ophthalmoscopy using an eye simulator model. Clinical Teach 2014;11:99-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12064
26. McCarthy DM, Leonard HR, Vozenilek JA. A new tool for testing and training ophthalmoscopic skills. J Graduate Med Educ. 2012;4:92-96. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-11-00052.1
27. Androwiki JE, Scravoni IA, Ricci LH, Fagundes DJ, Ferraz CA. Evaluation of a simulation tool in ophthalmology: application in teaching funduscopy. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 2015;78:36-39. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20150010
28. Hoeg TB, Sheth BP, Bragg DS, Kivlin JD. Evaluation of a tool to teach medical students direct ophthalmoscopy. WMJ: Official Publication of the State Medical Society of Wisconsin 2009;108:24-26.
29. Swanson S, Ku T, Chou C. Assessment of direct ophthalmoscopy teaching using plastic canisters. Med Educ. 2011;45:520-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03987.x
30. Ricci LH, Ferraz CA. Simulation models applied to practical learning and skill enhancement in direct and indirect ophthalmoscopy: a review. Arquivos Brasileiros de Oftalmologia 2014;77:334-338. https://doi.org/10.5935/0004-2749.20140084
31. Ricci LH, Ferraz CA. Ophthalmoscopy simulation: advances in training and practice for medical students and young ophthalmologists. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2017;8:435-439. https://doi.org/10.2147/AMEP.S108041
32. Beckman TJ, Cook DA, Mandrekar JN. What is the validity evidence for assessments of clinical teaching? J Gen Internal Med. 2005;20:1159-1164. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.0258.x
33. Messick S. Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educational researcher. 1989;18:5-11. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X018002005
34. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Barsuk JH, Wayne DB. A critical review of simulation‐based mastery learning with translational outcomes. Med Teach. 2014;48:375-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12391
35. Kirkpatrick, D. Great ideas revisited. Techniques for evaluating training programs. Revisiting Kirkpatrick's four level model. Training and Development, 1996;50: 54-59.
36. Smidt A, Balandin S, Sigafoos J & Reed V. The Kirkpatrick model: a useful tool for evaluating training outcomes, J Intell Dev Disabil. 2009;34:3, 266-274, https://doi.org/10.1080/13668250903093125
37. Borgersen NJ, Skou Thomsen AS, Konge L, Sorensen TL, Subhi Y. Virtual reality-based proficiency test in direct ophthalmoscopy. Acta Opthalmologica 2018;96:e259-e261. https://doi.org/10.1111/aos.13546
38. Boden KT, Rickmann A, Fries FN, et al. Evaluation of a virtual reality simulator for learning direct ophthalmoscopy in student teaching. Ophthalmol. 2020;117:44-49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-019-0909-z
39. Deuchler S, Sebode C, Ackermann H, et al. Combination of simulation-based and online learning in ophthalmology: efficiency of simulation in combination with independent online learning within the framework of EyesiNet in student education. Ophthalmol. 2022;119:20-29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00347-020-01313-0
40. Howell GL, Chavez G, McCannel CA, et al. Prospective, Randomized trial comparing simulator-based versus traditional teaching of direct ophthalmoscopy for medical students. Amer J Ophthalmol. 2022;238:187-196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2021.11.016
41. Tso HL, Young J, Yung CW. Comparing Eyesi virtual reality simulator and traditional teaching methods for direct ophthalmoscopy: students' perspectives at Indiana university school of medicine. J Academic Ophthalmol. 2021;13:e66-e72. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1726349
42. Akaishi Y, Otaki J, Takahashi O, et al. Validity of direct ophthalmoscopy skill evaluation with ocular fundus examination simulators. Can J Ophthalmol. 2014;49:377-381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2014.06.001
43. Bukhari AA. The clinical utility of eye exam simulator in enhancing the competency of family physician residents in screening for diabetic retinopathy. Saudi Medical J. 2014;35:1361-1366.
44. Larsen PD, Stoddart H, Griess M. Ophthalmoscopy using an eye simulator model. Clinical Teach. 2014;11:99-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12064
45. Gupta DK, Kh, ker N, Stacy K, Tatsuoka CM, Preston DC. Utility of combining a simulation-based method with a lecture-based method for fundoscopy training in neurology residency. JAMA Neurol. 2017;74:1223-1227. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2073
46. Yusuf IH, Ridyard E, Fung THM, Sipkova Z, Patel CK. Integrating retinal simulation with a peer-assessed group OSCE format to teach direct ophthalmoscopy. Can J Ophthalmol. 2017;52:392-397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2016.11.027
47. Dodaro NR, Maxwell DP, Jr. An eye for an eye. A simplified model for teaching. Arch Ophthalmol 1995;113:824-826. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1995.01100060150051
48. Kelly LP, Garza PS, Bruce BB et al. Teaching ophthalmoscopy to medical students (the TOTeMS Study). Amer J Ophthalmol. 2013;156:1056-1061.e10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.06.02276.
49. Martins TG, Costa ALF, Helene O, et al Training of direct ophthalmoscopy using models. Clin Teach. 2017;14:423-426. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12641
50. Wu C, Luo M, Liu Y, et al. Application of a 3D-printed eye model for teaching direct ophthalmoscopy to undergraduates. Graefes Arch Clin Experiml Ophthalmol 2022;260:2361-2368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05538-w
51. Swanson SM, Ku T, Chou CL. Assessment of direct ophthalmoscopy teaching using plastic canisters. Med Educ. 2011;45:520-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.03987.x
52. Chung KD, Watzke RC. A simple device for teaching direct ophthalmoscopy to primary care practitioners. Ameri J Ophthalmol. 2004;138:501-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2004.04.009
53. Donovan L, Brian G, du Toit R. A device to aid the teaching of retinoscopy in low-resource countries. British J Ophthalmol. 2008;92:294-294. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjo.2007.121699
54. Levy A, Churchill AJ. Training and testing competence in direct ophthalmoscopy. Med Educ. 2003;37:483-484. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.2003.01502_13.x
55. Wessels GF, Oeinck C, Guzek JP, Wessels IF. A home-made model eye for teaching retinoscopy. Ophthalmic Surgery & Lasers 1995;26:489-491. https://doi.org/10.3928/1542-8877-19950901-19
56. Kennedy M, Dobbie A, Timberlake G, Klein R. Improving the teaching and learning of fundoscopy skills: the Timberlake Eye Model. Educ Primary Care. 2006;17:63-65. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475990X.2006.11493512
57. Wang H, Liao X, Zhang M, Pang CP, Chen H. A simple eye model for objectively assessing the competency of direct ophthalmoscopy. Eye 2022;36:1789-1794. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41433-021-01730-8
58. Khan MA, Hennessy MP. Prince of Wales Eye Model: A simple and free 3D ‐printed eye model for simulating fundus examination. Clin Experim Ophthalmol. 2021;49:626-627. https://doi.org/10.1111/ceo.13953
59. Wilson AS, O'Connor J, Taylor L, Carruthers D. A 3D virtual reality ophthalmoscopy trainer. Clin Teach 2017;14:427-431. https://doi.org/10.1111/tct.12646
60. Acosta D, Gu D, Uribe-Quevedo A, et al. IMCL - Mobile e-training tools for augmented reality eye fundus examination. 2019:83-92. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11434-3_13
61. Chan M, Uribe-Quevedo A, Kapralos B, et al. A preliminary usability comparison of augmented and virtual reality user interactions for direct ophthalmoscopy. 2020 IEEE 8th International Conference on Serious Games and Applications for Health (SeGAH) 2020;NA:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1109/SeGAH49190.2020.9201804
62. Cook DA, Hatala R, Brydges R, et al. Technology-enhanced simulation for health professions education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama. 2011;306:978-988. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2011.1234
63. So HY, Chen PP, Wong GKC, Chan TTN. Simulation in medical education. J Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh 2019;49:52-57. https://doi.org/10.4997/jrcpe.2019.112
64. Doyon J, Benali H. Reorganization and plasticity in the adult brain during learning of motor skills. Current opinion in neurobiology 2005;15:161-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2005.03.004
65. Roediger HL, Butler AC. The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in cognitive sciences 2011;15:20-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003
66. Dunlosky J, Rawson KA, Marsh EJ, Nathan MJ, Willingham DT. Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychol Sci Public interest 2013;14:4-58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266
67. ten Cate OTJ, Kusurkar RA, Williams GC. How self-determination theory can assist our understanding of the teaching and learning processes in medical education. AMEE Guide No. 59. Med Teach. 2011;33:961-973. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2011.595435
68. Paik B, Ngai NT, Rhee J, et al. Effectiveness of simulation models and digital alternatives in training ophthalmoscopy: a systematic review. Med Teach. 2025 Feb;47(2):233-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2024.2326112
69. Okuda Y, Bryson EO, DeMaria Jr S, et al. The utility of simulation in medical education: what is the evidence? Mount Sinai J Med: J Translational Personalized Med. 2009;76:330-343. https://doi.org/10.1002/msj.20127
70. Rudolph JW, Simon R, Raemer DB. Which reality matters? Questions on the path to high engagement in healthcare simulation: LWW. 2007:161-163. https://doi.org/10.1097/SIH.0b013e31813d1035
71. Bradley P. A simple eye model to objectively assess ophthalmoscopic skills of medical students. Med Educ. 1999;33:592-595. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2923.1999.00370.x
72. Kim J, Park J-H, Shin S. Effectiveness of simulation-based nursing education depending on fidelity: a meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:1-8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-016-0672-7
73. Kahlenborn C, Sassani JW, Sherrard M, Frankel CA. A mannequin for teaching ocular fundus examination skills. Arch Ophthalmol. 1989;107:1725-1726. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.1989.01070020807010
74. Mackay DD, Garza PS, Bruce BB, et al. Teaching ophthalmoscopy to medical students (TOTeMS) II: a one-year retention study. Am J Ophthalmol 2014;157:747-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajo.2013.12.013
75. Mahmoud A, Abid F, Ezdini M, et al. The contribution of simulation in training for funduscopic examination. Tunisie Medicale 2021;99:1141-1147.
76. Miller D. A teaching eye model for ophthalmoscopy. J Med Educ. 1981;56:671-672.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198108000-00011
77. Penta FB, Kofman S. The effectiveness of simulation devices in teaching selected skills of physical diagnosis. J Med Educ 1973;48:442-445. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-197305000-00005
78. van Velden JS, Cook C, du Toit N, Myer L. Primary health eye care: evaluation of the competence of medical students in performing fundoscopy with the direct ophthalmoscope. South African Fam Pract. 2010;52:341-343. https://doi.org/10.1080/20786204.2010.10874003
79. Nguyen M, Quevedo-Uribe A, Kapralos B, et al. An experimental training support framework for eye fundus examination skill development. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed. 2019;7:26-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681163.2017.1376708
80. Chan M, Uribe-Quevedo A, Kapralos B, et al. Virtual and augmented reality direct ophthalmoscopy tool: a comparison between interactions methods. Multimodal Technol Interact 2021;5:66-NA. https://doi.org/10.3390/mti5110066
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
© Deepaysh DCS Dutt, Harry Hohnen, Subham Kulshrestha, Hessom Razavi 2025
Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
La soumission d’un manuscrit original à la revue constitue une indication qu’il s’agit d’un travail original, qu’il n’a jamais été publié et qu’il n’est pas envisagé pour publication dans une autre revue. S’il est accepté, il sera publié en ligne et ne pourra l’être ailleurs sous la même forme, à des fins commerciales, dans quelque langue que ce soit, sans l’accord de l’éditeur.
La publication d’une recherche scientifique a pour but la diffusion de connaissances et, sous un régime sans but lucratif, ne profite financièrement ni à l’éditeur ni à l’auteur.
Les auteurs qui publient dans la Revue canadienne d’éducation médicale acceptent de publier leurs articles sous la licence Creative Commons Paternité - Pas d’utilisation commerciale, Pas de modification 4.0 Canada. Cette licence permet à quiconque de télécharger et de partager l’article à des fins non commerciales, à condition d’en attribuer le crédit aux auteurs. Pour plus de détails sur les droits que les auteurs accordent aux utilisateurs de leur travail, veuillez consulter le résumé de la licence et la licence complète.
