Comparing the Diagnostic Utility of Conventional Direct Ophthalmoscopy with Smartphone Ophthalmoscopy among Medical Students

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To compare the diagnostic ability of medical students using smartphone ophthalmoscopy (SO) with conventional direct ophthalmoscopy (DO). Methods Twenty-eight first- and second-year medical students were trained to use the SO and DO. They also attended educational seminars regarding optic nerve and retinal pathology and were given hands-on practice with each ophthalmoscopy method. Students were randomized 2:1 into one of the groups (DO or SO). Students then examined six patients and recorded their findings, ease of use, and confidence level on a questionnaire. Two attending ophthalmologists, masked to the randomization, graded the student questionnaires. A priori power calculation determined the sample size. The primary outcome measure was the percentage of correct diagnoses the students made. Two-sample t-test, Wilcoxon's rank-sum test, and Fisher's exact test were used to compare the outcomes. Results Students using the SO outperformed students using DO in terms of mean percent correct (% correct) diagnosis (smartphone: 42% vs. direct: 23%; p-value = 0.0057), mean % correct photo match (smartphone: mean = 60% vs. direct: 32%; p-value = 0.0052), and mean % correct nerve/retinal descriptors (smartphone: 72% vs. direct: 59%; p-value = 0.0048). There was not a significant difference in terms of perceived ease of use (smartphone: mean = 3.3 vs. direct: mean = 2.6; p-value = 0.0945), or subjective confidence (smartphone: mean = 2.6 vs. direct: mean = 2.1; p-value = 0.0808) between the two groups. Conclusion SO provides an alternate way for medical students to learn, diagnose, and describe ocular pathology.