Randomized trial evaluates teaching utility of Deep Reality Viewer compared to 2D monitors in medical learners, suggesting improved educational value.
PURPOSE: A major challenge in teaching slit-lamp biomicroscopy is providing adequate depth perception and anatomical detail; the Deep Reality Viewer (DRV) addresses this by enabling stereopsis. This study evaluated the utility of DRV for slit-lamp examination (SLE) teaching and compared it with 2-dimensional monitors. METHODS: In this single-centre prospective comparative study, 33 medical learners completed a qualitative assessment comparing DRV versus 2-dimensional (2D) monitors for SLE of the anterior segment and optic nerve head (ONH). Perceived educational value and task-specific utility were compared across 16 Likert-scale (1-5) parameters in 4 domains: image quality, anatomical visualization, user experience, and teaching utility. The primary outcome was the comparison of teaching utility ratings between modalities. Secondary outcomes included composite domain scores, trainee-level differences, and intermodality agreement for ONH assessments. RESULTS: Median [IQR] DRV was rated significantly higher than 2D monitors for image quality (4.3 [4.0-4.6] vs 3.5 [3.3-4.2]; p < .001), anatomical visualization (4.4 [4.0-4.8] vs 3.6 [3.2-4.3]; p < .001), and teaching utility (5.0 [4.5-5.0] vs 4.0 [3.8-4.8]; p < .001). Cup-to-disc ratio estimates showed minimal systematic bias (mean differences -0.01 to 0.03) with no significant difference in variability between DRV and 2D monitors (all p > .05). Subjective ratings of ONH visual quality did not significantly differ between modalities (all p > .05). CONCLUSIONS: DRV may be a useful tool to improve SLE teaching, as its perceived image quality and depth perception appear superior to 2D monitors.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tran et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: