Talk:Myopia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Error in Myopia.svg The image explaining concave corrective lenses shows beams of light not with a focal point in front of the retina in the top picture, then the light passing through corrective lenses and then the eye in the second picture, focusing on the correct spot. However it is clear in this picture that the corrective lenses have not altered the path of the light at all, the image simply shows the light being bent at a different angle through the cornea than in the first eye!

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by KanadaKid19 (talk • contribs) 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem. a big problem. huge infact.Short-sighted has multiple meanings. One is "lack of foresight." However, every attempt to write an article on that interpretation gets redirected here. Does anyone here know of a word that means "lack of foresight" that I can use to solve my problem? Albert Simard 17:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Many claim that Myopia can be cured without glasses. Although I believe that is true, the solution adopted by prominent persons line W.H. Bates is not so clear and helpfull for a reader. Just wanted to know if any further research has been done on this subject or not.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.138.112.243 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC).

The 'bates' method hasn't recieved any real studies in 20-30 years, and the ones back then were disputed. I think it should atleast be mentioned as it does have a considerable following. I don't know if we should get too far into palming sunning colour days and such, but maybe an external link, and a mention of the subject.SCVirus 04:00, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

While i have no evidence that SCVirus is wrong, it would be nice if s/he is wrong. If anyone is aware of any recent, serious studies on the 'bates' method, preferably openly published (though medical sciences seem to be the most closed of sciences in terms of open web publishing), then please speak up. i read a book on the 'bates' method a loooooong time ago and if the NITM hypothesis is correct, the obvious next question is whether or not therapy is possible. Certainly, my subjective statistical assessments of correlations between people wearing glasses and their nearwork frequency make it hard to believe that NITM is wrong. However, it is possible that NITM is correct but that it does not imply any practical therapies.

Moreover, given that the 'bates' book has been widely sold and distributed, probably some mention of it should be made, e.g. in a section claimed therapies based on the NITM hypothesis. Boud 11:33, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well its been a couple months and no ones put anything in so i'm gonna do it, just add it with a link to the main article.

Bates Method doesn't actually refer to Bates' theory of myopia, but rather his program of eye exercises. There is already a link to Bates Method earlier in the section. AED 06:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The Bates Method has actually recieved some attention and there are now eye excersise kits that you can buy from his successors. An example can be found at http://www.rebuildyourvision.com

I did not order the kit, so I don't know if it really works. But the example excersise (for curing presbyopia) shows that they might be pretty effective. Anyway, the Bates Method should be mentioned at least once in the article.Dtm142 21:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

---

This article claims that myopia is especially high in East Asia. Any scientific explanation for why this is the case? —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 06:05, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

The explainations that I usually hear attribute the high rate to enviromental factors, such as the heavy emphasis on academics and studying, and higher population density (i.e. more closework). At any rate the occurance is definetely very high... when I went to school in Taiwan about 7 years ago it was something like 70-80% of the student population (presumably somewhere nearer to there for the entire adult population).-Loren 09:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

there is considerable medical literature pointing to environmental factors (near task study, over-illumination etc) and diet as associatives to myopia Anlace 06:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I edited this slightly to read "in some countries, such as" rather than "in places like". Firstly because we are comparing countries, not "places" and secondly because it is extremely difficult to define a country as being "like" another one and therefore ambiguous as to what other countries are "like" the ones mentioned. My correction is both more objective and logical and not merely an improvement of the English. --JamesTheNumberless 11:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

The last line of the article states:

One 2002 study suggested that myopia may be caused by over-consumption of bread in childhood. So far, this has not been supported by further research results.

What does the final sentence mean?

1)Further research has been conducted but contradicts the results of this study.

2)Further research has been conducted but is ambigious with regards to these results.

3)Further research has not been conducted.

So, which is it?

- Gyan 19:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, NO research has been done... there was no study actually referenced in the article.AED 21:08, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am a nearsighted person, maybe since the age of 10. Many opthamologists sell the idea that myopia is completely environmental, despite evidence on the contrary. Fact is they don't know. My grandmother had diabetes 2 (the most common type in the world) and also suffered from severe myopia. Myopia could very likely be emergenic caused by genetic and biochemical factors [1]. -- Orionix 02:46, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Can someone provide info on other myopia measurement systems? I know for a fact that Taiwan and possibly other East Asian countries use a different system of "degrees", ranging from 100 to as high as 2000 (?). When I got my glasses in Taiwan I was diagnosed with 350/400 "degrees", but am unsure how severe or how this would be measured with the diopter system. Phaust 08:17, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bias in the Links

The external links seem biased. Only websites that dispute the hereditary theory of myopia are listed. If external links are to be provided at all, they should include at least some neutral websites.

Complete thoroughness would require medical links that are more or less accepted as neutral, or at least objective; links to sources that dispute the traditional medical theories of myopia; and links to sources that defend the traditinal medical theories.

---

This claim that all the links are biased is NOT CORRECT:

The referenced Myopia Manual is explicitely giving an absolutely unbiased and neutral view on all the various aspects of myopia. Scientific sources, which are supporting the hereditary theory of myopia are presented in this comprehensive paper as well. (August 05, 2005)

i'm not sure about absolutely - as the author says himself, he's aware of the difficulty in claiming perfect objectivity in the scientific community. But certainly http://www.myopia-manual.de/ is a very impressive synthesis. People wanting to correct the wikipedia article should probably spend some time reading and understanding it... Boud 12:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I have removed the link to myopia.org (THE MYOPIA MYTH: How To Prevent Nearsightedness) since the only content on that page is a link to preventmyopia.org, which is the second of this article's external links. AJR 12:27, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Rather than list every external link supporting the mainstream theories of myopia, I added a link to PubMed's "myopia" research. That should be sufficient to remove the NPOV banner. AED 06:00, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

---

What about the definition for the use of the word "myopic" that pertains to narrow mindedness of people?

theory vs hypothesis - consistency with wikipedia article on theory

Here are links to the descriptions of theory and hypothesis:

theory#Characteristics:

Characteristics - There is sometimes confusion between the scientific use of the word theory and its more informal use as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." In science, a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a firm empirical basis, i.e., ...

hypothesis

In common usage at present, a hypothesis is a provisional idea whose merit is to be evaluated. A hypothesis requires more work by the researcher in order to either confirm or disprove it.

Do either the genetic hypothesis or the NITM hypothesis qualify as theory, given the five points listed in theory#Characteristics? Are they supported by many strands of evidence? Do they make predictions which someday may be used to disprove them?

The article as it stands seems to present the genetic hypothesis as closer to theory, and the NITM hypothesis as closer to hypothesis. i'm not trying to start a flame war here, but if this is supposed to be an article discussing the science of myopia, then IMHO we should not be using "theory" as a synonym for "speculation" or "conjecture." Anyway, people working on the article can probably sort this out... i know that half a year or so ago, people working on global warming were unhappy to shift from the informal use of "theory" to the scientific use of it. Boud 11:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Boud: I believe that the genetic hypothesis is not only closer to being a theory, but that it really is a theory. As to NITM, I believe that it also qualifies as a theory, but note the "T", for transient: I believe that this effect is beyond dispute and therefore qualifies as a theory--the evidence is too strong to disprove it. On the other hand, the hypothesis that NITM leads to a permanent form of myopia is still only a hypothesis.

Researich2 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Dbpsmith:

You want me to prove, as I claim, that the author (me) of the entry in “Theories” (which you reverted) and the author of the external link, are one and the same person. If I were dishonest, I think it would be fairly easy to fake it, by means of IP spoofing or some other technique. Any suggestions?

Researich2 01:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

the eye with myopic people

I noticed there isn't any information about what the eye does differently in a person with myopia compared to one with perfect vision. Like when a person tries to focus on a distant object. Is there any? Or maybe the info is there in the article, and I just completely missed it. Perhaps someone with knowledge in this subject could contribute? Appreciate it. :) Gflores ^Talk 08:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Article Improvement Drive

Contact lens is currently nominated to be improved on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. Please support the article with your vote. --Fenice 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

a short note to potential editors: on alternate usages of the term

In game theory (economy, math), players of a game may or may not be capable to consider the effect of their current actions on the future. The phrase "Myoptic" is used to describe players who are not or not very capable to do this. The opposite is, as in the real world, farsightedness. Onkl (no member), 19 January 2006

Agreed; I've heard the word used a number of times to describe people's views and attitudes. The article should include a short mention of this alternate meaning. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

JMVS?

I'm snipping

• Scanlan's General Theory of Myopia

pending discussion, because I want someone to explain why JMVS is a "reputable source" per verifiability policy. It may well be, but at the moment I have some problems with it:

• This is an online journal that apparently has no print counterpart
• According to the archive, it has, so far, published only two papers
• the editors are not named. Their credentials are not mentioned.
• Neither the the For Authors page, nor anything else, indicates that this is a peer-reviewed journal. It appears as if submissions are reviewed only by the editors.
• Since only the editors vet submissions and since we don't know who the editors are, I don't understand how one can make a sensible judgement of the journal's accuracy or reliability.
• Google Scholar does not appear to contain any content from "Journal of Modern Vision Research". None of the 43 hits on JMVS are to this online journal
• JMVS is not among the 2,000 journals indexed by Proquest Research Library, an online database available at libraries. (I regard this list as a good rough cut at a list of clearly reputable journals).

Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just looked through the Scanlon article this morning, and have read the other article (Otis Brown) from this JMVS site previously. IMO, the only qualification for submissios must be either payment or knowing one of the "editors."

I have NO IDEA what Scanlan's credentials are alleged to be, but Brown is a retired engineer who has bandied about his (overwhelmingly unsubstantiated) theory for 15 years, totally ignoring research studies that are in direct contradiction with his hypothesis, and citing only some chimerical Hong Kong eye doc alleged to support his position. Brown has been under investigation for practicing medicine without a license.

The registrant for the domain is some Australian organization with a Hotmail account. I'd be more than curious if anybody can unearth more about these JMVS folks. Awfully cryptic, they are....—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.8.122.244 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC).

I've removed the Scanlan bit again. -AED 04:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Myopia-IQ

Couldn't the alleged myopia-IQ connection occur due to that near-sighted people tend to read more? 惑乱 分からん 15:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I think. It goes along with the theory that close activity causes myopia (which is a simple enough concept; if you look at a close object for too long, all you'll be able to see is the close object). People who read more are often said to be more intelligent than people who read less...Dtm142 17:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking something along the lines that if you have a higher IQ you are more likely to have a demanding education/job and therefore you are more likely to complain about not being able to see properly.

Another possibility is that high IQ also relates to smart parents, which usually means higher income than low IQ parents. High income in turn correlates to better access to doctors, which means it is more likely that myopia will be detected.

Let me conclude by saying that the Myopia-IQ correlation seems to have too ambiguous based on the evidence presented in the article. I would vote to remove it until better references on the correlation are obtained. D1lux 20:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And I would disagree. The correlation is of interest and should be discussed, but the controversy and ambiguity of the research should, of course, be highlighted. Famousdog 21:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfect example on why Wikipedia is such a failure

This article has been completely kidnapped by the people who want to sell their "alternative" and/or "magical" myopia cures that only they know about but THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT YOU TO KNOW! AND THE PEOPLE AT THE FDA HAVE GUNS FOR GODS SAKE, REAL GUNS! I mean, please, can a real doctor, as in someone who actualy went to and graduated from medical school, update this sorry ass article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.124.123.147 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any proof that these methods do not work?Dtm142 23:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

We typically approach these sorts of questions in terms of proving that something DOES work. Very difficult to prove a negative. AFAIK, none of these natural vision improvement methods has EVER proven effective *at relieving true (axial-length) myopia*, though there are people with "pseudomyopia" or "accommodative spasm" who--when they learn to relax their accommodative mechanism (ciliary muscles), do relieve a half a diopter or so of pseudomyopia. Depending on their chosen method, there may not be any downside.... NBeener 4/20/06 (before I officially got my "account" ;-)

Then it should go somewhere in the article, to avoid confusion. Dtm142 17:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Needs better images

Diagrams that show how the actual eye changes. I hate dealing with copyright crap, so maybe someone else will upload for me. But it needs to show how the eye changes, not just some vague eye diagram like many of these google images are. DyslexicEditor 19:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

True, the quality of the images should be improved. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I just replaced the images with colors, after many attempts at trying to upload over the files. I wish I hadn't spent the time because people on wikipedia want to delete every image here. DyslexicEditor 20:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I must point the fact that the image for myopia is not accurate and must be corrected : myopia does not simply makes things fuzzy at long distances, it makes them look a little bigger, just as if you had a magnifying glass right in front of the eye. Indeed, you can observe that correctives glasses make things look a little smaller

I just looked at the diagram for using a lens to correct myopia, and it's inaccurate. It doesn't show the lens refracting light whatsoever and makes it seem as if the light is only refracted once at the cornea. The only difference between the two images is the angle of the lines after making this arbitrary refraction. The image should be replaced or removed altogether. Chachilongbow (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wish we could start a kind of discussion about this again, because I also have an inkling that the images may be incorrect. I would wonder what myopia looks like to different people. Darion29 (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)darion29

Added section on perceptual effects of strong myopia

I am not sure what to do here. This is documentation of a perceptual capacity which I have, that I know is real and which I can readily experience and duplicate at any time if a bright point-light source is available.

I am aware that Wikipedia is not an avenue for original research. However, since I am not a doctor of optometry by trade, it is unknown to me if these perceptions are widely known in the field of optometry or have been documented in any optometry textbooks or research materials. (And if it is known, it probably is documented using much more scientific terminology that I do not know, and am unable to make surface when I try to do Google searches that might be related to this topic.)

I can only say that such perceptual effects should be directly verifiable by anyone else with a similarly high level of myopia, and who attempts to duplicate the method of perception... which is simply to take off the glasses/contacts and look at a single lone bright point-light source, with no other point-light sources nearby that might cause overlap of the light disks..

DMahalko 07:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I can absolutely confirm this phenomenon. My eyes have a diopte of -7.0R and -7.5L and it's still possible to see these effects. I had always wondered if other people with myopia were aware of it. Drumex 12:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the section from the article, but preserved it below. Unfortunately, the information is largely not verifiable per WP:V and lacks reliable sources. -AED 05:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Perceptual effects of extreme myopia

At the extremes of nearsightedness (-9 diopter shown here) a new perceptual ability arises out of what would otherwise appear to be a disability. When a person with -9 diopter myopia views light sources at night without corrective optics, the light source is spread out into a large unfocused disk of light.

However, the disk of light is not flat and featureless, but instead reveals details about the viewer that are not otherwise within the range of perception. These drawings attempt to approximate what is seen separately in the left and right eye. (In normal stereoscopic vision, these two views of a single light source are overlapped and merge together, but can be seen separately by covering one of the eyes.)

Due to the extreme vision error, the person is instead able to see microscopic details within their own eyeball, such as the protein strings that naturally float freely in the clear aqueous humour of the eye. Rapid movements of the eye will swirl up the protein strings, which continue to swirl around for a few seconds when the viewer suddenly stops to look at the light source. The motion and shape of the strings is clearly visible.

The microscopic surface of the cornea is also visible in the light disk. Objects such as tiny air bubbles, lint, and other debris can be seen, and partially closing and reopening the upper eyelid will leave a visible ridge of liquid where the lid has pushed the liquid along in front of it. The eyelashes hanging down from the upper eyelid in front of the pupil can also be seen.

Other visible details include the size of the pupil, which can be seen as the light disk growing and shrinking in size, and the shape of the cornea, which may not necessarily be perfectly circular and shows what is being corrected by astigmatic cylinder adjustments in the lens prescription.

One final detail that is visible is a distortion of the upper part of the cornea, caused by the eyelid normally lying across the top edge of the cornea when the eyes are open. This slight distortion usually disappears after sleeping all night with the eyes closed, then slowly reappears again in the daytime when the eyes are open.

Behavioral myopia

Regarding this addition to the "Clinical entity" section:

Behavorial Myopia The most prevalent cause of myopia. Caused by spending hours looking at close objects such as a book or a computer. (Young, 1969, Behavioral myopia is cause of 100% of myopia in eskimo children) Behavorial Myopia can be prevented by using "reading" or "computer" glasses when focusing on close objects for long periods. For more information: "Take off Your Glasses and See" Liberman, OD, Ph.D. 1995

First of all, it is not proper to insert this immediately following "Goss et. al described the various forms of myopia based on their clinical appearance". Goss did not describe "behavioral myopia" so it is not proper to destroy the context of what he describe by sticking that in the middle of it. Secondly, "behavioral myopia" suggests not a classification based on clinical appearance but rather a classification based on cause. Thirdly, Young suggested no such classification nor did he use the term "behavioral myopia" in "The transmission of refractive errors within eskimo families." PMID 5258732.

Regarding the edit summary that went along with that addition:

If Goss does not recoginize the most prevalent cause of Myopia then he should not be used as a reference. (Young, 1969, Behavioral myopia is cause of 100% of myopia in eskimo children)).

The classification suggested by Goss was cited by the American Optometric Association. In other words, the classification has mainstream acceptance. On the other hand, "behavioral myopia" apparently does not as it gets a total of four Google hits. -AED 05:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this as it should, and indeed is covered in pathogenesis. Maybe the whole article is a little too technical, but it is there. Claus Diff 12:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Wrong image

Isn't this image's current version wrong? Shouldn't the rays of light bend already within the glas lens and bend even more behind it? --Abdull 09:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is designed to show how a concave lens diverges light for proper placement on the retina; however, you are correct. -AED 06:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Readded external link on Myopia Prevention that someone removed

The external link to Myopia.org provides over 60 pages of information that is being suppressed by eye doctors, the optical industry, and our government. It antagonizes just about everyone in the eye care business. Therefore I ask the editors of this site to be vigilant and insure that no one removes it again. At stake is the vision of hundreds of millions of children around the world. Donald Rehm, President, International Myopia Prevention Assn., Ligonier, PA. If you wish to discuss this, feel free to email me from the site. 12 November 2006 (I don't know why this new topic ended up together with Wrong Image. Fix it if you can and remove this note)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.155.192.143 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC).

Your conspiracy theory website is not a reliable source. If you have references for any substantive data, peer-reviewed articles, etc. supporting your claims, please use those instead. — Xaonon (Talk) 21:18, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Xaonon. First of all, there is no conspiracy against your organization. The guidlines at Wikipedia:External links help determine whether or not your link should appear here. Among these points are that you should not insert links to websites that you own or maintain. Secondly, the International Myopia Prevention Association is still represented in the article as a cited reference; www.preventmyopia.org is currently included as #61 as I write this. Finally, you are welcome to edit the article if you think it is factually inaccurate. Please be sure that you pay particular attention to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:EL, WP:V, and WP:RS, if you do so. -AED 00:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you really feel that peer-reviewed articles are honest? These journals would not exist if it wasn't for advertising money from the optical industry which is violently opposed to prevention. Such journals have no interest in publishing a meaningful article on prevention. Even so, my site contains many references to published research by Francis Young and others that is never made available during the education of an eye doctor. And what about your link to the Wildsoet site? Here is a gal who is tooting her own horn and applying for grant money that furthers her own career. So she can link to herself and I can't? Are you on the side of big business or the consumer? Donald Rehm, International Myopia Prevention Assn—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.155.197.32 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC).

We're "on the side" of verifiability. If you can't deal with that, tough. — Xaonon (Talk) 22:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• After reviewing the site at preventmyopia.org, i'm going to remove the link from this article. The proposed mechanism of action of myopia on the website has been comprehensively disproven, and the recommended method of treatment (of reading glasses) has been shown to yeild very little benefit. Wikipedia is no place for pseudoscience or quakery, no matter how it presents itself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided : Violates points 2 and 3

Fillup 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the statement on a page about Myopia:

Many people with myopia are able to read comfortably without eyeglasses. Myopes considering refractive surgery are advised that this may be an advantage after the age of 40 when the eyes become presbyopic and lose their ability to accommodate or change focus.

Question: Are patients advised that "refractive surgery" OR "Myopia" itself is an advantage after age 40?

Thanks, Joseph Williams dreamwaker@bellsouth.net

• It is an advantage to be myopic over age 40, as your near point will be closer than a emmetropic eye with equivalent accomodation. Fillup 00:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

introductory content

WHAT IS UP with the penis, vagina, and boobs introductory text? It says: "Those with myopia typically can see nearby penises clearly but vaginas appear blurred. The opposite defect of myopia is hyperopia or "far-sightedness" or "long-sightedness" — this is where the boobs are too flat or the penis is too short." -- tkf 169.229.143.195 22:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism. Now sorted. Famousdog 14:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Pinhole glasses

I removed the following from the introduction of the article: "Pinhole glasses are considered less likely to cause progressive myopia and thus often provide a better choice for those with low enough levels of myopia that it can be corrected by this means." First, it is an unsourced medical claim and thus dioes not belong in the article, second, I dread the thought of meeting someone driving at night who is peering through a pinhole as they try to see their way, out of fear that real corrective lenses might worsen their myopia. A pinhole makes a pretty lousy lens in general, just better than squinting hard. Edison 18:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Treatment Options

Added paragraph "The standard treatment for myopia...." this is a factual statement. There are no external links here. If this is removed by any editing vigilante who is employed by big business to hide the truth from the public, a protest will be made to the Wikipedia Foundation. There is too much censorship on pages like this. Impa 16:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be a factual statement, but your source is one book (and books aren't to my knowledge peer-reviewed in the way scientific articles are, only edited) and you cite the same source 3 times. In addition, it isn't vastly out of line with what the AOA say anyway, so I linked the two and edited out redundancy. And on a personal note, I think you need to calm down. There isn't any "consipiracy" about vision. I've encountered many crazies on wikipedia but nobody so far has referred to fellow wikipedians as: "editing vigilant(ies) ... employed by big business to hide the truth from the public." Get a f*cking grip. Famousdog 13:14, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Treatment option: stitch a band (The "Smart Eye Band") around the sclera of the eye and and bring the retina closer to focus. Check out the drawings here: http://www.google.com/patents?id=gV96AAAAEBAJ The Page 12 and Page 13 drawings show a surgical correction for axial myopia. The inventors created this company: http://www.ophthalmotronics.com/index-1.html ETA: One year... they are looking for founding to begin clinical testing.

Quack Theories

This page has alot of quack theories. Do we really need medical theories that lack common sense?--172.143.231.101 (talk) 18:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I think people need to be forewarned of pseudoscientific "solutions" like the Bates method. What other "quack" theories were you referring to? Famousdog (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Correctional vision technique

There is another way I figured out on how to correct vision a little bit better than squinting.
You basically just squint and then put a finger on the outer edge of your eye and stretch it a little.
If you do it right your vision will be almost as good as wearing glasses.
Does this work for anyone else?

EyeRelax

There is a device from Singapore called EyeRelax whose manufacturer claims can correct myopia. Is there anyone out there who knows anything about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.218.22 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is meant to "help prevent worsening of eyesight due to myopia...", not correct it[2]. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 03:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

Removed this section:

"Famous Cases of Myopia Charles Dance, the actor, has suffered since the age of eight. Bertrand Russell, the philosopher, suffered since the age of nineteen. Sylvester McCoy, the comedian, suffered all his life (making filming stunt scenes in Doctor Who difficult). Piers Morgan was 'outed' by a newspaper as suffering Myopia in 1999, but has since been proven untrue. Jeff Andonuts, from the video game Mother 2, uses glasses to correct his myopia. Sherlock Holmes was said to have written a short story about Myopia, but was shelved soon after his death."

Are we really going to exhaustively list every single famous human being with myopia??? This section will very quickly get out of hand. The same thing happened on the strabismus page, and it was quite rightly removed. See here. Famousdog (talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Section on Race and Ethnicity is contradictory

The section on the incidence of Myopia in people of different races makes statements and then contradicts them with the figures:

In Americans between the ages of 12 and 54, myopia has been found to affect blacks less than whites[33]. Asians had the highest prevalence (78.5%), followed by Hispanics (13.2%). Whites had the lowest prevalence of myopia (4.4%), which was not significantly different from African Americans (6.6%).

I'm no mathematician, but 4.4% for white people and 6.6% for black people tells me the incidence in black people is actually higher, therefore contradicting the statement that "myopia has been found to affect blacks less than whites." 82.39.235.106 (talk) 10:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC) junkfoodmonkey 19th June 2008

Reading glasses

http://www.   myopia   .org/neiresearchcritique.htm

Your thoughts? Could we include a section on prevention like this? --Ericg33 (talk) 07:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "Cline" :
  • {{cite book|last=Cline|first=D|coauthors=Hofstetter HW; Griffin JR|authorlink=|title=Dictionary of Visual Science|edition=4th ed|publisher=Butterworth-Heinemann|location=Boston|year=1997|isbn=0-7506-9895-0|series=}}
  • Cline D; Hofstetter HW; Griffin JR. ''Dictionary of Visual Science''. 4th ed. Butterworth-Heinemann, Boston 1997. ISBN 0-7506-9895-0

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Near Work–Induced Transient Myopia and Its Decay Characteristics

Maybe this should a small section, since near-work induction of myopia is a common topos of many myopia pathogenesis theories?

• Balamurali Vasudevan and Kenneth J. Ciuffreda: Additivity of Near Work–Induced Transient Myopia and Its Decay Characteristics in Different Refractive Groups (Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 2008;49:836-841).

(online http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/49/2/836)

-- 89.247.108.24 (talk) 12:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

extra ICD10 entry required for degenerative myopia

degenerative myopia is H44.2 ; not 52.1 -- 89.247.108.24 (talk) 12:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Near work and nightlight exposure in childhood...

Near work and nightlight exposure in childhood have been hypothesized as environmental risk factors for myopia.[57] Although one initial study indicated a strong association between myopia and nightlight exposure,[58]

Here are two issues ("near work" and "nightlight exposure") intermixed, the mentioned study mainly deals with the second, not the first. Maybe better seperate both topics? -- 89.247.108.24 (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

theories

maybe worth mentioning, since they attemt to form a closed set of consistent arguments around the seeing-environmental-stimuli-controls-ocular-growth theory:

• Hung GK, Ciuffreda KJ.: Incremental retinal-defocus theory of myopia development. Computers in Biology and Medicine, Volume 37 , Issue 7 (July 2007), 930-946 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17150204)

• J . Wallman , J . Winawer: Homeostasis of Eye Growth and the Question of Myopia, Neuron, Volume 43, Issue 4, 447-468 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15312645)

• Hess RF, Schmid KL, Dumoulin SO, Field DJ, Brinkworth DR.: What image properties regulate eye growth? Curr Biol. 2006 Apr 4;16(7):687-91. Comment in: Curr Biol. 2006 Apr 4;16(7):R257-9. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16581514)

• Schaeffel F, Diether S.: The growing eye: an autofocus system that works on very poor images. Vision Res. 1999 May;39(9):1585-9. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10343852)

• Shaikh AW, Siegwart JT Jr, Norton TT.: Effect of interrupted lens wear on compensation for a minus lens in tree shrews. Optom Vis Sci. 1999 May;76(5):308-15. (induced myopia seems thresholded, starts with long-lasting lens wearing time: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10375247)

-- 89.247.108.24 (talk) 15:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Myopia Simulation Misleading

The image showing simulated myopia is inaccurate. There is an odd "doubling" or "motion blur" effect to the out-of-focus regions which is not consistent with actual myopia. Ideally two photographs, one with small aperture distance and one with large aperture (small depth of field) focused on a nearby object should be used to illustrate the concept.--74.66.20.38 (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is not misleading, the photo is completely wrong. Everything is blurred, fore and background. It has nothing to do with myopia. Photo should be removed till one can be added as described above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.166.118 (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pretty bad. I'll see if I can come up with something better. 75.36.204.224 (talk) 01:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm myopic. At first glance, it didn't look right. I took off my glasses and adjusted my distance from the "clear" picture until it was about as blurry as the "myopic" picture, and it didn't look the same way at all. The colors are brighter and the blurring is different. Whoever made this image did not know what they were doing. 67.248.124.99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC).

Ads in the article: specialist attention needed

Some ads (and maybe original research) of a Moscow comapny was added into the article, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Myopia&diff=254018178&oldid=253653582 . This user (User:Praj_gh) also put some text into another section of the article, which IMO should be checked and edited by a specialist:

Nature did not supplied humans with the gift to adaptation to the visual stress : according to its concept , humans should not have a long time look intently at particular point . During the visual stress in humans , there appears the " accommodation spasm " of the circular ciliary muscle , which controls the work of crystalline - it changes the curvature of the front surface of crystalline lens . ( Accommodation is the ability of the eye to change the shape of its crystalline lens for focusing at different distances to see the object clearly ) With the termination of visual stress , this spasm is removed, but not completely, and that becomes the reason for the appearance of myopia , subsequently progressive .Together with accommodation spasm of ciliary muscle, in the case of myopia , it is postulated that blood circulation of retinal tissues is disturbed because of which the retinal tissue becomes less sensitive to light . As a result both factors , there appears myopia , subsequently progressive .

193.125.71.14 (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have removed that section since it is not cited, appears to contravene WP:OR, and is grammatically incorrect in a plethora of ways. If somebody wants to rewrite it and provide adequate references, then please do so. I don't think it currently adds anything to the article and I'm surprised that nobody has removed it already. Famousdog (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed another section that appears to have been missed by Famousdog; it had been added by Praj_gh as part of his four edits to this section. It sounds suspiciously like an ad, and the only sources are a hype-laden page from the firm's own website. The text and theory itself, if it could be called that, seems highly suspect. This is the section I removed:

In recent years, low radiation laser therapy has proved its usefulness in treatment and prevention of progressive short-sightedness and also a number of other ophthalmological diseases. Laser instruments for the treatment and prevention of eye diseases are developed by Moscow firm "MACDEL" in collaboration with N.E. Bauman Moscow State Technical University (MSTU), Helmholtz Scientific Research Institute of eye diseases, Moscow and several other medical and engineering research centers in Russia. With the aid of the instruments proposed by firm "MACDEL", the progressive myopia is treated noncontact, painlessly, also, without the active participation of patient. One of these instruments - "MACDEL 00.00.09" directs laser beams to the ciliary muscles of eyes, removing thus the accommodation spasm, because of which appears the myopia. The weak laser emission of another instrument - "MACDEL 00.00.08" acts directly on retina, improves nutrition (blood circulation) of retinal tissue and relaxes optic nerve. Both procedures occupy a total of several minutes, and the necessary treatment cycle consists of 10 such procedures. It is necessary to repeat the treatment cycle once in several months period, then this need is gradually eliminated. This therapy is effective not only in the myopia, but also with the squint, the astigmatism and several other eye diseases.

If anyone else sees further MACDEL edits, please examine them carefully and see if they follow Wikipedia guidelines. I myself am unlikely to return to this article, since I was only here because I wanted to find out more about myopia :) JorenCombs (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting results on reading causing myopia?

I read "Saw SM, Tong L, Chua WH, Chia KS, Koh D, Tan DT, Katz J (January 2005)" on myopia and neither their purpose nor their results indicate any significant treatment of reading/near work, other than controlling for amount of reading. If anything, the study is counter to the first sentence - namely, it indicates that near work MUST be statistically controlled for to determine likelihood of onset of myopia by age. If nobody objects within the next week with a reasonable counterpoint, I'd like to change the sentence to "Near work has been implicated as a contributing factor to myopia." Garykempen (talk) 18:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on 21 jan 2009?

All edits done by 141.156.91.112 and Junsun on the 21 january 2009, seems questionable. I made this comparation. Major text parts were deleted. In addition, a new section "Historical Understanding of Cause and Prevention" were added, which is not written in the way a Wikipedia text should be (long links and such); also the contents of that section may be questionable. Could someone check this? Mårten Berglund (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

At least two of those references are to websites that promote "holistic", "natural", "complementary" remedies for myopia. I am therefore very suspicious of the motives behind these edits. See the ongoing battle on the Bates method page for example. Famousdog (talk) 16:26, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Restored the cut para. Tagged the potentially unreliable new material. Famousdog (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I wrote this section in order to try to get other editors interested in covering the history of our understand on Myopia. After reading what other edittors have to say, I understand this section does not fit well with the general structure of this article. It is for this reason that I decided to remove this section.--Junsun (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

short sighted

The picture of the two boys should be removed I am short sighted and my vison is poor but it dose not look any thing like that you do not see a blured dobule of everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.166.192.0 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. And human eyes are always focused on one spot whereas the photo doesn't seem focused on anything. I also doubt many short sighted people have it as bad as in that photo. st4rdog (talk) 18:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

The article could use a thorough going over with an eye to WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEASEL. Medical concensus should be clear and prominent. Individual studies should not be used without references to reviews or the link showing that the studies are indeed noteworthy. Promising areas of current research should be differentiated from fringe theories. - too much reliance upon studies rather than reviews. --Ronz (talk) 00:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• These observations seem too speculative and general. Be more specific. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

If you'll ask specific questions, I'm happy to clarify. Given your admitted problems with interacting with me, I suggest you not be involved with this article though. Otherwise, this could look like baiting on your part. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• You explicitly invited other editors to weigh in here. Please address the issue. Your concerns seem too vague to support a POV tag. The article certainly needs improvement, being quite rambling and full of jargon, but this is different matter. The choice of sources is likewise a different matter. As for controversial techniques such as the Bates method, they seem to be adequately qualified with statements which indicate their dubious nature. I suggest replacing the POV tag with a {{cleanup}} template. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia:MEDRS#Basic_advice gives good guidelines to follow here. --Ronz (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag for much the same reasons that I disagreed with Ronz's tagging of Bates method. Provide specific examples of POV and they can be corrected. Famousdog (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Treatment Option

Stitch a band (The "Smart Eye Band") around the sclera of the eye and and bring the retina closer to focus. Check out the drawings here: http://www.google.com/patents?id=gV96AAAAEBAJ The Page 12 and Page 13 drawings show a surgical correction for axial myopia. The inventors created this company: http://www.ophthalmotronics.com ETA: One year... they are looking for founding to begin clinical testing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.63.252.220 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Potential references

• http://www.webmd.com/eye-health/tc/nearsightedness-myopia-prevention WebMD.com Nearsightedness (Myopia) - Prevention 7 july 2007.
• http://www.aoa.org/myopia.xml Myopia (Nearsightedness) American Optometric Association
• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE5DB103BF932A35755C0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 In Debate on Myopia's Origins The Winner Is: Both Sides? Brody June 1, 1994.
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6117-lifestyle-causes-myopia-not-genes.html lifestyle-causes-myopia-not-genes Rachel Nowak 8 July 2004.
• http://www.iovs.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/9/2794 Myopia and myopic progression among schoolchildren: a three-year follow- up study 1993 by Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
• http://smj.sma.org.sg/2804/2804smj3.pdf Myopia In 10 Year Old Childre-A Case Control Study S.L.Ling, A.J.Chen, U. Rajan, W.M.Cheah
• http://archopht.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/126/4/527 Myopia, Lifestyle, and Schooling in Students of Chinese Ethnicity in Singapore and Sydney
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14558850 Clinical and Experimental Optometry, Australian Optometric Association Sept 2003

--Ronz (talk) 18:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Scleroplasty

Why isn't there an section about scleroplasty surgery? It's a surgery that puts support to the back of the sclera and prevents it's enlongation. It's not widely accepted and not very discussed in the internet, so I don't know much about it. It's not done by most countries. I found that it's mostly done in russia. There even is an wikipedia article in russian about scleroplasty and no such article in any other language. Can someone include information about this procedure in the treatment section? Maybe someone living in Russia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.73.140.238 (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Contradictory Information

This paragraph indicates both that African Americans have the lowest prevalence of myopia and that Caucasians have the lowest prevalence of myopia:

Myopia is less common in african american and African people[. . .] Caucasians had the lowest prevalence of myopia (4.4%), which was not significantly different from African americans (6.6%). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Minetruly (talk • contribs) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Second meaning of "Myopia"

I am in a financial class and have found a second meaning for "Myopia." The definition I have found means "a position our society has adopted with a live for today attitude." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.131.112 (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that sounds exactly like the current one, i.e. "short-sighted". Famousdog (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

the myopia image is false

http://www.acuvue.com/vision-common-problems.htm

nearsightedness/shortsightedness confusion

As can be attested to through ALL print and online journals, peoples with nearsightedness/shortsightedness can see near objects closely, and far objects are blurred. This contradicts the first paragraphs on this page, which read:

"...also called nearsightedness or shortsightedness, is a refractive defect of the eye in which collimated light produces image focus in front of the retina when accommodation is relaxed.

Those with myopia see far away objects clearly but near objects appear blurred..."

References include:

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=10611 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nearsighted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.97.58.2 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ray Tracing Image correction

Someone already pointed out that the image in which a diverging (double concave) lens is used to focus collimated light onto the retina has an error. This is how it should be corrected. The reason the diverging lens is used to "fix" myopia is that rays of light are refracted at its front and back interfaces. The double concave shape makes the incoming parallel rays diverge a little bit. They are then focused normally by the cornea and lens in the front of the eye. If a lens with just the right diverging focal length is used, the incident light is focused onto the retina instead of in front or behind it. See Wikipedia's entry on "Lens (optics)" for a good diagram of how a double-concave lens refracts light. The current image shows light passing unaffected through the corrective lens, then being refracted onto the retina by the structures of the eye itself. Instead: the light rays to the left of the corrective lens should remain parallel as shown. When they hit the lens, they should diverge a little at both interfaces, as shown in the diagram of the diverging lens from "Lens (optics)." So, the rays between the corrective lens and the front of the eye should be shown diverging. The cornea and lens in the eye then focus those diverging rays such that they converge onto the retina. 130.202.98.18 (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.202.98.18 (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, shouldn't parallel rays strike separate parts of the retina in order to form an image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.117.68 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Myopia and IQ

I removed the following clause from the article for discussion: "and many studies have shown a correlation between myopia and IQ, likely due to the confounding factor of formal education." This is probably a valid correlation given the correlation with education level (and consequently with income, and more likely to be causal with excessive nearwork (though there may be selection biases here)), but I am not sure that we really need to devote any weight to it here. PubMed has one review at [3], which does not make it out to be a particularly hot topic or hugely relevant to the myopia research community. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. --Ronz (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have provided a source which details numerous studies of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Risks of Surgery

quote: "It may also be corrected by refractive surgery, but this does have many risks and side effects". Compared to spectacles, there is a more risk but the word 'many' is subjective. According to Wikipedia (e.g Lasik), the statistics for serious vision loss was more risky for contact lenses. The word 'many' also sounds mis-leading considering that these days more people are opting for laser surgery. Preroll (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Self-published sources

The Donald Rehm book, "The Myopia Myth" does not appear to be a reliable source. The author's website, www.myopia.org contains a lot of material that appears to be quackery (conspiracy theories, medical devices for sale, anti-doctor rants, etc.) The book itself is effectively a self-published work (published by the International Myopia Prevention Association, which is Rehm's organization and sells his "Myopter" device). Any one of these is sufficient evidence of a non-reliable source, but see particularly WP:SPS. Geogene (talk) 00:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald Rehm makes sense

The fact that Rehm is self-published does not detract from the fact that his theories make sense, esp. the impact of minus lenses on the dynamic lenghtening of the eyeball via vitreous humor secretion. Lots of research speak of the retinal control of the development of myopia (rather than the accommodation control), however, scientists love to swim with the crowd. Whatever is the exact mechanics of the pathology, concave lenses should indeed come with a warning that they "worsen your sight in the long run". The cure as bad as the disease. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.200.51 (talk) 02:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Broken clocks are right twice a day. Lots of quacks who push "natural cures" tend to "make sense" to the uneducated/semi-educated public. That's how they gain what little undeserved credibility they get. He claims optometrists "play doctor" while he plays optometrist, vision scientist, pharmacological expert, tin foil haberdasher, and 60's-era guru. The guy is a hack and needs to unlearn his poorly formed understanding about vision care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.228.35 (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Myopia in China?

• Hey,I try to add Myopia in China this section on the page,but removed by the adminster.

China is the most myopic country in the world,this information is worth to add on the page. 219.151.153.119 (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I have restored the text. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

FDM

Don't you feel a need for explaining this term while used in the article more than 10 times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.216.90 (talk) 23:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Myopia and underwater vision

WP:scuba diving has the claim: "People with severe myopia, therefore, can see better underwater without a mask than normal-sighted people." It is uncited. Should this be noted on the myopia page? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancy between data for India under "Epidemiology" section?

Hi all, I noticed while reading through this article that there is - well, at least seemingly - a major discrepancy under the Epidemiology section. It reads:

"In some areas, such as China, India and Malaysia, up to 41% of the adult population is myopic to −1dpt,[55] up to 80% to −0.5dpt.[56]"

Then, about 4 lines down, it mentions India again, where it reads:

"In India, the prevalence of myopia in the general population has been reported to be only 6.9%.[63][64]"

Obviously, at first logic tells me that both cannot be correct; but if they indeed are somehow, I think some clarification needs to be added. I'm sure it's possible there are a few ways that both statements could indeed be true. For example, if a different threshold of myopia is being used for each fact, then that needs to be included with this data. This could be the case if statement 2 is speaking of incidence of myopia to say, -1.5dpt, which could explain how it is such a low percentage, yet also a true fact, when compared to the first statement. (Which, if you recall, cited that up to 41% of the adult population in India is myopic to -1dpt). Or, perhaps, since "general population" could be assumed to include children, maybe children in India have an extremely low incidence of Myopia compared to the listed adult rate of 41-80%. Those are just 2 examples I thought of that could provide for making both statements true, and they are in no way the definite cause of the discrepancy, I've done NO research on this as of yet.

A user a few posts above mentioned how China has the highest rate of Myopia in the world, which lends to the fact that the percentages listed are probably correct, but maybe India just isn't in that same percentage group? If it were to be removed from the first statement, that would clear it up, but I don't know if that's factually correct, removing it that is.

Does anyone else see my point here, or am I misunderstanding or misreading the "Epidemiology" section containing these two facts? I realize this is not a HUGE deal, but I am always on the lookout to improve any article, even with small problems like this. At the present, however, I do not have access to any of the 4 publications cited for these two statistical facts. So if anyone else feels these two seemingly incompatible statements need to be fixed in some way, I hope someone is able to access the cited works OR has an excellent knowledge of myopia and can determine how to fix this properly. Thanks in advance for anyone who feels capable of figuring this out!

Heimdallen (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

lens correction diagram is wrong

The image "Compensating for myopia using a corrective lens." is wrong. The outer light rays should angle outwards as they pass through the convex lens ( partly as they enter the lens, then more as they leave the lens) so they are not parallel when they enter the eye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.209.142 (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Why Singapore, Europe, US have high myopia prevalence

It is English education...The students doing experiments for the most of the time in the class...How come they become myopic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.85.244.220 (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Last year, I read this page....

The accurate figure is not like this...I remember the Europe myopia prevalence is only up to 10% also US is up to 15% only...

How come it changed so fast within one year...Please clarify this page and add additional reference source...119.85.244.220 (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't remove material without explanation

To the anon who keeps removing this material: maybe you have a good reason, but you need to explain it. Don't just delete material without even an edit comment explaining why. This is the material in question. I think it's a little dubious myself but it needs to be discussed.Dpbsmith (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Too much activity needing the eyes to focus on near objects causes the lens of the eye to focus (accommodate) excessively, leading to a spasm of the ciliary muscles surrounding the lens of the eye. Prolonged ciliary muscle spasms eventually lead to the elongation of the eye resulting in myopia. Some claim that wearing a plus lens during near work greatly reduces the eyes need for accommodation and therefore prevents ciliary spasm, and the elongation of the eye. Near work can also be eliminated almost completely by working at the computer from a distance of around 1.5 meters and reading electronic versions of the books (on a computer in a distance).

No, it does not need to be discussed. It breaches WP:MEDRS. A blog is not an acceptable medical source. Famousdog (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

If there'd been an edit comment saying "breaches WP:MEDRS" I wouldn't have had a problem. What I saw was an anon removing material with no explanation. Sorry if I overreacted. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Contradictory Information re: Glasses Worsening Eyesight Over Time

The first sentence in the "Prevention" section:

"The National Institutes of Health says there is no known way of preventing myopia, and the use of glasses or contact lenses does not affect its progression[29]"

And the first three sentences in the second paragraph of the "Management" section:

"Glasses may have the potential to make the eyes worse, as they increase the accommodation needed by the eyes to focus.[citation needed] Evidence of this can be seen when people with higher prescriptions have a harder time with activities like reading because their eyes grow tired faster.[citation needed] Stronger prescriptions require a higher accommodation by the eyes to focus through them, which can, over time, worsen eyesight, requiring yet another prescription, in a continuous but quickening cycle.[citation needed]"

These two passages clearly contradict each other, and the latter seems anecdotal. I suggest its removal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.76.184.149 (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the fact that this section ("Management") has almost no citations, and the one I did look into was incorrect. See below. Major_Small (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Bad Sources?

I was looking through the "Management" section, and although there are very few sources, one line I wanted to look into did have a source. Unfortunately, the paper this link pointed to had nothing to do with the topic in question.

The line: "Contact lenses of equivalent prescription may not result in the same effect as eyeglasses, as they are closer to the eyes and may require less accommodation"

The citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15555525

I couldn't find anything there that has to do with contacts, or any type of corrective lenses.

Major_Small (talk) 09:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if anyone will see this but regarding that section, it was flagged as needing more references nearly two years ago, and none are there still. Is there some type of time frame when it becomes ok to remove unsourced material?Ljeyrich (talk) 06:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Summary

I think there should be a summary otherwise it seems like an article is never ending without a summary. Also, researching goes a lot quicker if people know a summary goes at the end. The summary would be like the very beginning. It's restating an I think it is important to restate. So Wikipedia, build in a summary like the opening. 76.16.93.222 (talk) 22:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Strongest possible minus diopter correction?

(Yes, Wikipedia Talk is not a forum. However this is such an extremely specialized line of discussion, that there's really no other place to go with this.)

What is the strongest possible minus-diopter correction that is currently available, without specialist and ultra-high-cost custom manufacturing?

I have recently been reading about a young girl with a focus distance of 3cm (0.03m), which apparently is a diopter of -33.3:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/legally-blind-grade-4-student-sees-with-high-tech-glasses-1.2186517

Apparently no corrective lenses are directly available, for such extreme myopia.

I find myself wondering if a low-cost compound-lens solution is possible, for example using a flat base curve, make two -17.0 diopter lenses (possible?), and bond the flat faces together with optical cement. These lenses could mount in standard frames, leaving the bonded lens hanging free and held in place only by the cement.

Also since lens diopters can generally be compounded, perhaps a third-lens solution could work: two -12.0 lens with flat base curve, optically bonded together is about -24.0 correction, plus -10.0 diopter contact lenses, for a total of -34.0 correction across all three compounded lenses. Possible? Feasible?

What optical factors might I be overlooking that would make this not work? It is possible that the compound lens abbe number and color fringing might be severe. Also, I would expect the reversed-bonded double-eyeglass lenses would likely lead to additional tunnel vision around the visual perimeter.

Though the advantage of optical compounding would be, no need for electronic aides that cost thousands of dollars and are bulky for the user to wear.

Regarding the article, an answer to these questions would be useful as a discussion of the maximum possible correction available to people with extreme myopia.

-- DMahalko (talk) 11:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Causes" section needs to be fixed

The "causes" section of this article does not seem to say anything about the causes of myopia. All it does is report some correlations between myopia and other factors. Either actual causes of myopia should be added to this section, or the section should be deleted and the reports of correlations moved to elsewhere in the article. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sources

What is the justification for this edit? [4] Normally we add sources to unsourced statements, or tag them with a citation needed tag, or remove them if no source can be found. This edit turned a sourced statement, cited to a book published by Praeger, into an unsourced statement. That's exactly the opposite from the direction we need to go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.253.251.120 (talk) 12:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably deleted because (1) Arthur Jensen is not an authority on the heritability of myopia, even though he's an authority on the heritability of intelligence (2) The book was published in 1998, and there has been lots of research on the heritability of myopia since then, using far more advanced genetic tools than we had in 1998. The best WP:MEDRS source would be a recent review article in a major peer-reviewed journal. --Nbauman (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a brief discussion of accommodative hysteresis that results from sustained near work.

Esemee2 22:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esemee2 (talk • contribs)

PSSO Technique

A section on the PSSO technique was added, which I intend to remove. The only source I can find for its existence is http://high-myopia-eye-hospital.com/correction-process/ . As this is one eye hospital's website I don't think it is necessarily reliable considering the lack of other sources and as it appears to be performed by only one doctor it doesn't seem to be a notable procedure. I am happy to be proven wrong and welcome the section to be added again should an appropriate citation be added. The link I've added probably would not count as it could very easily be seen as promotion of the hospital. PriceDL (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks agree we need better sources User:PriceDL Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

30% estimate high myopia

I am deleting the sentence saying roughly 30% of the myopic population has high myopia. It is not necessary and doesn’t belong in this section, if it were to go anywhere it should be in the epidemiology section, but I think it should be removed from the article entirely for the following reasons:

I couldn’t find anything outside of the cited Medscape article that supports this; the article says “it has been estimated” that (1) 27-32% of the myopic pop. have myopia of less than -6D and (2) that 6-18% of the myopic population have less than -8.00D. The article is about about phakic iol and doesn’t cite any sources for this figure or the population whether general, country specific, occupation specific.

(1) The article estimates “27-32%” (I assume this is where “roughly 30%” comes from. The prevalence of high myopia in the general population is usually estimated to be in the single digits in the united states, in E .Asia it has been estimates to exceed 20% in some populations. In its Trivex advertising material ppg notes that approximately 85% percent of eyeglass prescriptions are +/- 3.00 d. The highest estimates of severe myopia in any population seem to come from east Asian countries, which also have a much high prevalence of myopia some even estimated to be 90%+.

The numbers listed in the epidemiology section of myopia prevalence in over 40 populations and the prevalence of myopia exceeding -5.00 d, and a 2009[a] study make this number (30%) seem unlikely both use different definitions for high myopia. The highest population of high myopes (by far) is in East Asia and Singapore; a study estimating 13.1% of young males in Singapore have severe myopia (tot’l myopia prevalence was estimated at 79.3%) [d ]; one study estimating at 20% Taiwan high school students (-18yrs)[b] ;and another 21.61% 19 year males in Seoul [c]; Seoul paper estimate 96.5% of that population was myopic, with a similar percentage (80+ %) in Singapore

(2) The second number in the Medscape article (not cited in wiki article] 2009 study [a] estimated that 1.6 of the U.S. population had a myopia prescription at or above 7.9D. [a] Susan Vitale et al., Increased Prevalence of Myopia in the United States Between 1971-1972 and 1999-2004 http://archopht.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=424548

[b] Luke et al, EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDY OF THE PREVALENCE AND SEVERITY OF MYOPIA AMONG SCHOOLCHILDREN IN TAIWAN IN 2000

[c] Jung, Prevalence of myopia and its association with body stature and educational level in 19-year-old male conscripts in Seoul, South Korea.

[d] Grosvenor Theodore, Primary care optometry. Pathologic myopia ed. Spaide Richard, F. https://books.google.com/books?id=X1u4BAAAQBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=myopia+severe++text+book&source=bl&ots=yIuC93ZCoe&sig=YUTYCoQsJ8byjSqRiX19su33A9U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBGoVChMIm7mps-qJyQIVyeYmCh2WuQQ4#v=onepage&q=myopia%20severe%20%20text%20book&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.192.35 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

[d] W, et al, Does Education Explain Ethnic Differences in Myopia Prevalence? A Population-Based Study of Young Adult Males in Singapore — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.127.192.35 (talk) 04:11, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dopamine subsection from Research section

Almost nothing in the content below talks about myopia and there are all kinds of unsourced speculations in it. The presence and size of this section appears to be WP:SYN. Some of this might be useful but the offtopic stuff needs to be trimmed and the relationship to myopia made clear.

Dopamine

Dopamine is a major neurotransmitter in the retina involved in signal transmission in the visual system. In the retinal inner nuclear layer, a dopaminergic neuronal network has been visualized in amacrine cells. Also, retinal dopamine is involved in the regulation of electrical coupling between horizontal cells and the retinomotor movement of photoreceptor cells. Although FDM-related elongations in axial length and drops in dopamine levels are significant, after the diffuser is removed, a complete refraction recovery is seen within four days in some laboratory mice. Although significant, what is even more intriguing is that within just two days of diffuser removal, an early rise and eventual normalization of retinal dopamine levels in the eye are seen. This suggests dopamine participates in visually guided eye growth regulation, and these fluctuations are not just a response to the FDM.

L-Dopa has been shown to re-establish circadian rhythms in animals whose circadian rhythms have been abolished. Dopamine, a major metabolite of levodopa, releases in response to light, and helps establish circadian clocks that drive daily rhythms of protein phosphorylation in photoreceptor cells. Because retinal dopamine levels are controlled on a circadian pattern, intravitreal injection of L-dopa in animals that have lost dopamine and circadian rhythms has been shown to correct these patterns, especially in heart rate, temperature, and locomotor activity. The occluders block light completely for the animals, which does not allow them to establish correct circadian rhythms, which leads to dopamine depletion. This depletion can be rectified with injections of L-dopa and hopefully contribute to the recovery from FDM.

• L-Dopa metabolism is important to consider due to its extensive presystemic metabolism, rapid absorption in the proximal small intestine and short plasma half-life. The major metabolites of L-dopa are dopamine, dihydroxyphenylacetic acid, homovanillic acid, and 3-O-methyldopa and 3-methoxytyramine. Levodopa can be converted into dopamine in the presence of aromatic L-amino acid decarboxylase (L-AAAD). L-AAAD activity in rat retinas is modulated by environmental light, and this modulation is associated with dopamine D1 receptors and alpha 2 adrenoceptors. Also, the synthesis and release of dopamine are light dependent, and light accelerates the formation of dopamine from exogenous L-Dopa.
• Past treatments with dopamine has been used as the gold-standard drug in the treatment of Parkinson's disease and low-dose administration of the drug has been the most effective treatment of Parkinson’s. Possible treatments involving dopamine in preventing a decrease in visual acuity have been shown to be successful in the past. L-Dopa treatment in children with amblyopia showed an improvement in visual acuity. In rabbits, injections of dopamine prevented the myopic shift and vitreous chamber and axial elongation typically associated with FDM. In guinea pigs, systemic L-dopa has been shown to inhibit the myopic shift associated with FDM, and has compensated for the drop in retinal dopamine levels. These experiments show promise in treating myopia in humans.
• Side effects of L-dopa have been experimentally determined. L-Dopa and some of its metabolites have been shown to have pro-oxidant properties, and oxidative stress has been shown to increase the pathogenesis of Parkinson's disease. This promotion of free-radical formation by L-dopa does seem to directly affect its possible future treatment of myopia because free-radicals could cause further damage to those proteins responsible for controlling structural proteins in the eye. Levodopa and some of its metabolites such as dopa/dopamine quinone have also been shown to be toxic for nigral neurons. This toxic effect must be analyzed before treatment with levodopa for myopia to prevent damaging effects to these neurons.

References

- Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Myopia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ranzco.edu/orthoptists-and-prescribing-in-nsw/view?searchterm=None

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Consistent terminology?

Is it or should it be "nearsightedness" or "near-sightedness"? Are they different? Is one correct? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It may be just a mistake. It's ideal to use the same style throughout the article.  Honette 22:01, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS issues and negative lenses

An editor has repeatedly added a primary source regarding negative lenses. WP:MEDDEF explains that medical content should be sourced to secondary or tertiary sources. I'm placing this here to encourage the editor to discuss the matter below. Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

yes PMID 25863670 is a primary source, not a review (the citation created by the IP wrongly says it is a review). The article added in the last dif, Greene PR and Medina A (2017). "Juvenile Myopia. Predicting the Progression Rate". M J Opht. (Review). 2(1): 012. is this. It was published in Mathews Journal of Opthalmology (their website is here); Mathews Open Access was on Beall's list before it went down (site), and is not MEDLINE/Pubmed indexed. So that ref is not OK either. Jytdog (talk) 03:00, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog. We need better sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Needs serious updating

with respect to prevention: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5599950/

Sure will look at it. But already already said "There is tentative evidence that near-sightedness can be prevented by having young children spend more time outside"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Too many categories?

As of January 2020, the article defines seventeen kinds of near-sightedness. Do we really need this many? Some are listed as "types" others "degree" and "age of onset". However, a review by Brennan and Cheng maintains that most such categories are ineffective. The American Optometric Association suggests a much shorter list of categories, namely

• simple myopia
• nocturnal myopia
• pseudomyopia
• degenerative myopia
• induced myopia

Condensinguponitself (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Claim that sleep loss causes near sightedness

Needs a better reference than this primary source

"where sleep-loss or interruptions during sleep is a prominent factor"

References

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

What about renaming to the common name for the disease: ie Myopia ?

Thanks Huhiop (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that would be proper in a medical text, this is a general encyclopedea so the common name seems valid and likely searched by more readers and the redirect works fine.

Idyllic press (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Came here to say exactly this. An article about sedimentary rock would be titled Sedimentary rock, not Rocks with layers. Garvin ^Talk 15:00, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The images for "Compensating for myopia using a corrective lens." are nonsens.

The pictures show, how light beams from different sources are directed to one point on the retina. This would lead to

a) complete loss of information as different sources could not be differentiated.

b) an injury of the retina. The light would literally burn a hole in it.

Correct images can be found here:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurzsichtigkeit#/media/Datei:Myopia-GM.svg

--Gmeyer (talk) 09:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Causes

To the editor Ruslik0: Please refrain from deleting the latest and most important references to knowledge and comprehensive reviews published by renowned authors in prestigious journals. You are doing a disservice to the readers and the general public. This article about myopia needs a lot of improvement. Please do help, do not obstruct knowledge and science. 2601:647:5580:D20:5066:AD09:92B2:211 (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Please take note of CV9933 's edit summary on their reversion: "please see WP:MEDRS and use the article talk page to discuss". Please also be aware of the 3RR rule. -- Jmc (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I will drop a note on IP user talk page. CV9933 (talk) 14:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

An anonymous editor operating from different IP addresses persists in inserting a lengthy account of a recent literature review article, implying that the cause of myopia is now definitively established. I've no objection to the inclusion of a reference to this review, but IMO it needs to be more balanced, along the lines of "A single-author literature review in 2021 contended that "myopia is the result of corrective lenses interfering with emmetropization". I'd note here, though, that it appears to come dangerously close to stating that the cause of myopia is myopia. -- Jmc (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Disguising a hypothesis as fact is irresponsible, and phrases like “the cause of myopia was finally narrowed down to a single factor” and “The latest comprehensive article about “ do not belong here. Continually re-adding the material when different editors all agree that it doesn’t belong here is not the way to proceed and is likely to lead to a block. CV9933 (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

To the editor Ruslik0: Please refrain from deleting the latest and most important references to knowledge and comprehensive reviews published by renowned authors in prestigious journals. You are doing a disservice to the readers and the general public. This article about myopia needs a lot of improvement. Please do help, do not obstruct knowledge and science. 2601:647:5580:D20:1017:DDBC:C750:AC9C (talk) 07:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@CV9933 This anonymous editor seems incorrigible. Time to consider a block? -- Jmc (talk) 08:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Jmc I suspect Ruslik0 might not have seen the discussion here, so lets wait for their input. CV9933 (talk) 11:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Earlier versions of your edits resembled a salad of words and were incomprehensible. It seems that you do not fully understand what you are writing about. Emmetropization artcile actually offers a more nuanced view of this subject. Ruslik_Zero 12:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

IMO the edit warring by the anonymous editor has gone on long enough, without any cogent attempt by them to justify their persistent edits. A block would seem to be the only course of action to bring an end to their campaign? -- Jmc (talk) 07:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a block of 2601:647:5580:d20:0:0:0:0/64 range is warranted. Ruslik_Zero 17:34, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

The anonymous editor is still at it, I'm afraid. -- Jmc (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe time for an uninvolved admin such as Oshwah to take a look at this IP hopper. CV9933 (talk) 10:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I've partially-blocked 2601:647:5580:D20::/64 from editing this article for two weeks for the ongoing edit warring. I hope that this nudges them to discuss the issues on the article's talk page rather than continuously reverting. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:34, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Emmetropization is a concern for children/teenagers, since they are growing bodily. So, yeah, staying too close to their mobile phones instead of playing outside produces myopia in children—that's endorsed by eye doctors, so it's not controversial. But that is rendered a non sequitur for the adult eye. And if there is any emmetropization in adults, it is a slow process wherein slightly myopic people become emmetropic. Nothing too spectacular. It happens that at age 40 you don't need reading glasses, since being slightly myopic counts as natural reading glasses, but at 60 you do need reading glasses. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

No, staying too close to a phone or TV or a book does not cause myopia. And no, at 60 you do not have myopia, you have presbiopia, which has completly different reasons due to broken lens. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 00:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)