Evidence-based teaching in contact lenses education: Teaching and learning strategies

Contact lens (CL) practice is an ever-changing field with clinical knowledge, techniques and equipment continuously evolving. These new developments are backed with clinical trials and research to ensure that practitioners feel confident that there is an evidence base to support these advances. Evidence-based practice is now a crucial part of CL practice, and its importance also filters down to CL education. For example, lectures are one of the most popular tools for an educator but, is standing at the front of a lecture theatre full of students a more effective way of teaching than providing the same material for students to read by themselves? What evidence exists specific to CL education

How accurate is an LCD screen version of the Pelli–Robson test?

Purpose: To evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of a computer-generated Pelli–Robson test displayed on liquid crystal display (LCD) systems compared to a standard Pelli–Robson chart. Methods: Two different randomized crossover experiments were carried out for two different LCD systems for 32 subjects: 6 females and 10 males (40.5 ± 13.0 years) and 9 females and 7 males (27.8 ± 12.2 years), respectively, in the first and second experiment. Two repeated measurements were taken with the printed Pelli–Robson test and with the LCDs at 1 and 3 m. To test LCD reliability, measurements were repeated after 1 week. Results: In Experiment 1, contrast sensitivity (CS) measured with LCD1 resulted significantly higher than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.20 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots showed a proportional bias for LCD1 measures. LCD1 measurements showed reasonable repeatability: ICC was 0.83 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. In Experiment 2, CS measured with LCD2 resulted significantly lower than Pelli–Robson both at 1 and at 3 m of about 0.10 log 1/C in both eyes (p < 0.01). Bland–Altman plots did not show any proportional bias for LCD2 measures. LCD2 measurements showed sufficient repeatability: ICC resulted 0.51 and 0.65 at 1 and 3 m, respectively. Conclusions: Computer-generated versions of Pelli–Robson test, displayed on LCD systems, do not provide accurate results compared to classic Pelli–Robson printed version. Clinicians should consider that Pelli–Robson computer-generated versions could be non-interchangeable to the printed version

Differences in practitioner experience, practice type, and profession in attitudes toward growing contact lens practice

202212 bcrcVersion of RecordSelf-fundedPublishe