Accuracy of vertical cup-to-disc ratio discrimination among clinical optometry trainees with different years of clinical experience

1Citations
Citations of this article
9Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Purpose Accurate evaluation of the cup-to-disc ratio is crucial for optometrists and may be influenced by their clinical experience. The study's objective was to compare the thresholds for discriminating vertical cup-to-disc ratio (VCDR) between years 2, 3, and 4 clinical optometry trainees. Methods One hundred fundus photos with various VCDR sizes were selected from a clinic database. The median VCDR (0.43) photo was assigned as the standard, while the other 99 were assigned as the test photos. The participant's task was to discriminate using a 2-alternateforced- choice paradigm whether the test photos' VCDR were larger or smaller than the standard VCDR. Data were fit with a Weibull function, and three discrimination thresholds were determined: the point of subjective equality (PSE), the range of VCDR uncertainty, and the ability to judge VCDR that was 0.1 unit larger than the standard photo. Results Year 4 trainees had better VCDR discrimination thresholds. However, the difference between the three participant groups was not statistically different for all measurements (PSE: F(2,27) = 0.43, p = 0.657; VCDR uncertainty range: F(2,27) = 0.12, p = 0.887), and thresholds for correctly discriminating VCDR 0.1 larger than the standard photo's VCDR: F (2,27) = 0.69, p = 0.512). Conclusion Although Year 4 optometry trainees performed slightly better at estimating VCDR than their Year 3 and Year 2 peers, the number of years of clinical experiences did not significantly affect their VCDR discrimination thresholds when 2-dimensional fundus photos were used as stimuli.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Hairol, M. I., & Lee, Y. R. (2022). Accuracy of vertical cup-to-disc ratio discrimination among clinical optometry trainees with different years of clinical experience. PLoS ONE, 17(9 September). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0274834

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free