Talk:Myopia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine / Ophthalmology (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force.
 

Myopia Simulation Misleading[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Scleroplasty[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Second meaning of "Myopia"[edit]

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[edit]

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

nearsightedness/shortsightedness confusion[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

I removed the following clause from the article for discussion: "and many studies[citation needed] 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 [1], 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)

Myopia in China?[edit]

  • 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)

FDM[edit]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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....[edit]

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[edit]

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[who?] 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).[1]

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[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

Summary[edit]

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?[edit]

(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[edit]

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)

  1. ^ "I Will See - myopia prevention and cure method". Retrieved 2011-09-15.