Talk:Presbyopia/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

Comment

It is mentioned that there is a "surgery" or "treatment" for correcting presbyopia. What is it? How does it work? Is it permanent?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.176.54.38 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 27 January 2005 (UTC).

A Google search for Presbyopia reveals several pages offering surgery or laser treatment, though I regard these with suspicion as they are trying to sell. It also reveals a patent covering the matter, and a report of recent trials of laser treatment. Non of these are as good as an article I found on the web a few years ago, for a centre offering treatment which explained how staples were put in to tension the zonula, the elastic ligaments that pull the lens outwards. The laser methods seek to strengthen or shorten the zonula, and some methods seem to insert a ring that pulls out the zonula. This all looks very recent and experimental and personally I wouldn't want to risk it, but it's interesting and may well become routine one day. --Lindosland 02:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Certain Professions

The article states that presbyopia is delayed in certain professions. Which ones ?? --SystemBuilder 18:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Ok, I found the article (the reference seemed to be associated only with the 2nd fact in the sentence.) I also found that the article assumed that 'seeking correction for presbyopia' was the same as 'developing presbyopia' which by no means is the same, e.g. farmers and housewives most likely seek correction later because their daily chores do not require extensive reading or near-field focusing to complete successfully. On the other hand, office-workers require this skill, and the lives of construction workers might depend upon it. --SystemBuilder 19:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Theories about focusing mechanisms of the eye

This article offers two opposing theories to explain the focusing mechanism which appear to contradict one another:

1. That the tension of the zonula is released by contraction of the ciliary muscle, to allow the lens to fatten, for close vision.

2. That the 'ciliary muscles' pull the lens taut in order to focus at close range, having the counterintuitive effect of steepening the lens centrally (increasing its power) and flattening it peripherally.

Since there appears to be no consensus in the literature, why not consider a third alternative?

3. That the muscles that control rotational eye movement, lateral rectus, medial rectus, and oblique muscles, work in opposition to one another in a kind of isometric tension that changes the shape of the eye, e.g. shortening (and lengthening) the focal distance to the retina?

75.85.223.238 (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Wm. B. Fankboner

The problem with this is that citations exist for the first two. Unless you can come up with a reference for your third, it is a "plausible proposal" which really comes under the original research category and therefore not eligible for inclusion in the Wiki TerryE (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

etymology of word

why give presbyteros (elder) when the simple form of the adjective presbys or presbus, old, seems simpler?12:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Even Merriam-Webster dictionaries (including the site online) uses presbys. That said, don't forget the Latin portion "-opia", which translates to "eye". Scarletsmith (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, -opia is actually Greek, it has the Greek root op- derived from ok-. In Latin, this root is oc- (oculus). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.59.149.183 (talk) 22:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Treatment

The mentioning of TruFocals in the Treatment section, looks very much as promotion of a specific product, Should this be part of the the article? jengeldk (talk) 13:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned it up, throwing away most of it. --X-Man (talk) 01:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

+1 The boiler plate in section has been pasted in from some TruFocals material. The vast majority of people in the 3rd world leave presbyopia untreated and live with it. In the more affluent nations the standard treatment is either multifocal or variafocal correction by spectacles. Since cataracts are also common with aging, multi-focal IOLs are also becoming more common. The % of the population using adaptive focal spectacles is tiny. A proportionate treatment of this option would be 1 or 2 sentences, rather than 75% of the section. TerryE (talk) 12:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be gone now. Can we get rid of the content complaints? Philhower (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No objections were raised. Done. Philhower (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

how the myopia and hyperopia both independently appear with astigmatisim,presbyopia,and corneal guttata? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.31.161.67 (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear authors of the most exciting free knowledge site. The root -opia is not at all latin. Its also Greek from the verb epoptevo which means I surveille, Thank you very much Stylianos Kassaras just a Greek who loves his language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.64.48 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Laser Blended Vision == Monovision

According to these sites:

http://www.medic8.com/laser-eye-surgery/blended-vision.htm
http://www.healthcentre.org.uk/laser-eye-surgery/laser-blended-vision.html

The "Laser Blended Vision" is trademark name for laser corrective surgery that results in monovision. Given that I suggest the section be rewritten and the whole Blended Vision page be moved into a new page about monovision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.162.44 (talk) 21:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

precisely 1.9?? inches

That reads really funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.178.217.125 (talk) 23:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Normal reading distance

The article says "a 60-year-old must use corrective lenses to read at a comfortable distance of 60 inches" which is plainly nonsense. A comfortable reading distance can't possibly exceed the length of ones arms! 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference for contact lens paragraph seems all wrong

The paragraph on contact lenses ("Contact lenses have also been used to correct ... There are also newer bifocal or multifocal contact lenses ...") is footnoted with a reference to a paper on "Switchable electro-optic diffractive lens with high efficiency for ophthalmic applications". This paper has nothing to do with contact lenses -- it has to do with LCD-based multifocal spectacle lenses.

I suppose the reference should be deleted or reparented to a new paragraph that actually relates to the subject of the paper, and the paragraph on contact lenses then needs a proper reference.

Jgs42 (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

We head for presbyopia from the age of fifteen

I was told by an optician today - May 22 2012 (I went to the optician because I had my eyes tested - I do not wear glasses, but I have diabetes mellitusand so needed my eyes tested) that we begin to head for presbyopia from the age of fourteen or fifteen, after our eyes have reached peak elasticity. Since I am not an optician myself, I would not wish to edit the article, but any who does know about this could edit it. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this even a disease?

Basically, the 'normal' reading distance has always been quoted as 12" - 18" with a 12 point Courier Font. Seems this Presbyobia has only come about where computer SW 'artistes' and computer engineers have created tiny fonts for use on tiny monitors and they have habitually locked their focal range for hours a day for decades.

Where people do have slowness in refocusing that is best alleviated through extended time away from TVs, monitors, and books everyday with walking and exercise. You can't expect to keep your lenses locked into such a narrow focal distance everyday and expect the lenses to stay responsive. No one with any sense has ever habitually read legal sized fine print since the days of 13 inch computer monitors with 8 point fonts and little screen space. Now with large sized monitors no one sensibly reads print like that. You know the legal size print was chosen that size because people, young and old, can't and won't read print that small.

This is like, to my surprise, 'floaties' in your eyes being now a new disease to be concerned about and treated. That floaties come about with age is ridiculous. I can remember them as a small child and being able to change focus from one to another as they move about.ThunderCell (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Gibberish

Besides lacking citation, this section makes no sense, and no attempt is made to explain it. The terms aren't even defined. Besides this writing, there are no references online to 'lens valve cytokinesis'. I assume it means farther separating the 2 surfaces of the lens, like mitosis of a clam shell, but no mechanism is suggested. How do you flatten the equator and fatten the poles?

"Many texts, though, describe the 'ciliary muscles' (which seem more likely to be just elastic ligaments and not under any form of nervous control) as pulling the lens taut to focus at close range.[citation needed] This has the counter-intuitive effect of steepening the lens valve cytokinesis centrally (increasing its power) and flattening peripherally."

173.25.54.191 (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Eye-training App to help with presbyopia?

Wall Street Journal: "Can an App Improve Vision?"

• http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304854804579234162915397686.html?mod=trending_now_2

"The Verdict: A 30-person study published in February 2012 in the journal Scientific Reports ..." — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:25, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Exercises

With the excellent quackwatch reference in Optometrist in mind, I ask: Has there been any research to determine whether eye exercises delay/prevent/treat Presbyopia? It seems like a simple thing to test, so surely, it's been done. What are the results? Since muscles are used to focus, it's reasonable to hypothesize keeping those muscles strong (e.g. by repeatedly focusing near and far) would help. If not, what are you waiting for? Surely, there's, e.g. NIH money for this type of work!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elvey (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC).

Yes, it seems that a test of a method like this should be fairly straightforward. The only problem might be finding dedicated subjects who are willing to keep at it for a while. PSWG1920 (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

By "muscles" you are meaning the extraocular muscles. These do not control accommodation. The muscles that do so are the ciliary muscles. Nuvitauy07 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The claim that exercises have not proven effective is referenced with a non-scientific web page (page of received medical advice). Moreover, that page provides no evidence for the claim, simply saying "it is fair to assume" that exercises will not help. It also makes the contradictory statement that "You need to use your accommodative system to keep it flexible", implying that exercise (use) of the system does have an effect. The claim that exercises "have not proven effective" thus needs stronger evidence if it is to be this categorical. GKantaris (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Doc James: Harvard eye exercise reference

Hi Doc James, I have partially reverted your edit on 2015 July 6th with regards to eye exercises and the Harvard website reference.

This was the original version:

• Eye exercises may help delay the need for glasses or contact lens in some people, but advocates of self-directed eye exercise programs have not conducted randomized trials to verify the effectiveness of their programs.{Eye exercises may help delay the need for glasses or contact lens in some people, but advocates of self-directed eye exercise programs have not conducted randomized trials to verify the effectiveness of their programs.[The lowdown on eye exercises, Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0903c.shtml]

And this was your edited version:

• Eye exercises are not supported by evidence.[The lowdown on eye exercises, Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/update0903c.shtml]

The Harvard weblink specifically states that "Practiced faithfully, eye exercises may actually help delay the need for glasses or contacts in some people." And further down: "You need to use your accommodative system to keep it flexible, and you can facilitate this by wearing lenses no stronger than you need. Also, don’t be in a hurry to start wearing reading glasses."

I therefore feel your edit contradicts the substance of the Harvard advice with regards to presbyopia.

By the way, I find the Harvard medical link unsatisfying as a whole because it contains no references, but I am unable to find properly conducted studies on presbyopia and eye exercises on PubMed. Can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.36.46 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 August 2015UTC) (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: The Harvard website offers no "evidence" for anything. Thus it is wrong to use it for one particular conclusion as you have done. It is all or nothing. But what we really need is a proper medical reference for the usefulness (or, more likely, uselessness) of eye-exercises for presbyopia. I suggest we leave the text as is for 24 hours so Doc James can take a look (he is on Pacific time zone). Unless you know of a good reference yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.36.46 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Both statements as to exercise are irrelevant to this article. I removed the Harvard reference entirely because I can read it and see that there is nothing relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Deleting the section is only the second-best solution. I have re-checked PubMed (search terms: "presbyopia treatment/management review") and again it has come up empty-handed with regards to eye exercise. Seems like nobody has published any research in this area. Strange. By the way, I disagree with your view that the Harvard website is irrelevant for the presbyopia wiki article. It is intriguing and potentially relevant but alas not good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.36.46 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Etymology in the lead

I just moved the very useful etymology from the end of the lead to the first sentence where I think it belongs and explained it well. Jytdog (talk · contribs) moved it to the end of the article instead, which is far worse than before, without explanation but instead just referring to an extremely long discussion with no conclusion or consensus. That doesn't make sense to me. If it should be moved away from the lead, it should be argued for or there should be a reference to a strict rule or clear and well-argued consensus about it; it is absolutely normal and super useful to have the etymology up there, as I already said and which you did not argue in any way against, Jytdog. You can't just move it without explaining. I find that disruptive, annoying, and lessening my want to improve Wikipedia. You also didn't explain why you felt you had to move it even further away, even though it's rather essential and doesn't belong hidden far away and wasn't before. --Jhertel (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for opening a discussion. This is the correct move when you add something and it is reverted. Wikipedia is read more and more by people on mobiles, and due to the way that editors keep larding up the lead with nonessential things like etymology, developers from the WMF actually starting showing readers the "description" field from Wikidata so that people could quickly get an idea of what they were reading about. Etymology is nonessential. I don't deny that it should be in the article but it just dictionary/housekeeping stuff. Not the most important thing about this topic, that needs to be dealt with in the first few words of the whole article. Jytdog (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Perceptual learning

Perceptual learning is mentioned in the current article, but perhaps there is now more to report on. [1] [2] Belteshazzar (talk) 20:06, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

In light of what the Treatment section says, perceptual learning would seem to merit some mention in the intro. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Description is not generally correct

When shortsighted people develop presbyopia they have no difficulty reading small print. So the basic description here is misleading. Davblo2 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit it. This page doesn't seem to get much activity, so the chances that someone else will fix it are not high. I won't attempt to, because anything I do regarding eyesight is somehow seen as POV-pushing. Belteshazzar (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Visual training

[3] This New York Times article cites several sources which support this approach, and this was published later. It appears that this has actually been studied and found to be effective! I brought this up in September but got no response, and that post was just archived. I think the GlassesOff app should probably be mentioned here, but I refrained from doing that since I don't want to be seen as promoting it. Belteshazzar (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You should really let other editors handle this topic entirely. ApLundell (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I brought this up three months ago, and no one did anything. Belteshazzar (talk) 03:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

We got sanctions applied to you. Seems like you want to get an outright ban or block at this point. --Hipal (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I should have pursued this instead of doing what I did at Bates method. Part of the reason I didn't do much at this article was that I was worried that content already here would end up getting removed, as occurred at the Bates method article. But in this case, there is clear support from valid sources (even if the New York Times piece itself doesn't qualify, sources it cites do). Belteshazzar (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

If you don't want to be blocked or banned, this is probably not anything you should be pursuing in any form at all. --Hipal (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I hesitate to point this out, but the Treatment section of the current article does clearly state that such methods have been "tested successfully in multiple studies", though without explaining what any such methods are, which is an odd omission. The statement is supported by a source, and more sources could be added. Belteshazzar (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

In the interests of fairness, I do think there is a place in this article for a fuller reference to the use of perceptual learning to achieve "improved visual performance in presbyopes" (to quote from Polat et al (ref. 13 in article)) (and it has absolutely nothing to do with the ineffective Bates method ;) ). -- Jmc (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

ApLundell told me above to "let other editors handle this topic entirely". I assume then that others will take care of this? Belteshazzar (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

In the coming week, I'll propose wording for a fuller reference. -- Jmc (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Basically, my proposal will be (1) to restructure the 'Treatment' section by placing the two subsections 'Corrective lenses' and 'Surgery' under '1. Image capturing in the eye' and then (2) to amplify '2. Image processing in the brain' by adding material from RSs on perceptual learning, including the use of Gabor targets. -- Jmc (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

To enlarge on my restructuring proposal above, I propose replacing the current content of '2. Image processing in the brain' with:

A number of studies have shown improvements in near visual acuity by the use of training protocols based on perceptual learning and requiring the detection of briefly presented low-contrast Gabor stimuli; study participants suffering from presbyopia were enabled to read smaller font sizes and to increase their reading speed.

For supporting this new content with RSs, I propose retaining current reference #13 (Polat et al.) and adding references to Lev et al. and Sterkin et al..

Comments sought! -- Jmc (talk) 00:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Nemine contradicente I'll proceed to make the proposed edits. -- Jmc (talk) 03:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Untitled

The article has just a single sentence regarding the actual cause of Presbyopia (decreasing levels of α-crystallin). I'd really like to know more about this. Why does it decrease with age? Are there treatments which could stabilize or increase α-crystallin? If not, why is it not possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42engineer (talk • contribs) 18:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No mention of change in GRIN lens quality of crystalline lens

I'm surprised the dependence of age on the refractive index distribution isn't mentioned in this article. An example reference to this is: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12079796/ Garethjv (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)