Detecting the effect of under-correcting myopia

The equations of ametropia: Predicting myopia

Why myopia develops, why it is reaching epidemic proportions and what is its cause are questions that puzzle many people. There is an answer to these questions and it is a simple one. This paper makes the connection between ametropic and in particular myopic development and theory to come with a summary of what we know about myopia and its governing equation. Key experiments, involving myopia and the effect of lenses in humans and animals have been done with unmistakable results. The observed effect of lenses implies a feedback mechanism. Feedback theory explains those results with mathematical precision. Disruption of emmetropization, is the mechanism behind ametropia and particularly myopia. Feedback theory for emmetropization was derived by observation of the input and output of the emmetropization feedback system in many patients. We show that it has the same equation as it is derived here independently from simple homeostasis principles. Classical observations and recent clinical studies have shown the association of many variables with myopia. They include near work, atropine, lenses, blur and outdoors versus indoors activities. We propose that human refractive development is controlled by homeostasis and based on that alone we derive the equation for the calculation of refraction for any patient and the effect of lenses. We provide software to calculate the refraction of any individual at any time. The editor of this journal makes the following statement: "This manuscript is intended for scientific discussion rather than clinical application. The present work does not intend to promote clinical under correction or no correction of myopia. Instead, clinicians should follow current clinical myopia management guidelines."

The cause of myopia development and progression: Theory, evidence, and treatment

I review the key findings and our current knowledge of the cause of myopia, making the connections among the reliable observations on myopia development and theory to arrive at a summary of what we know about myopia, the proposed prevailing theory, and applicable action. Myopia is reaching epidemic proportions. It is estimated that half of the world's population will be myopic by 2050 unless new strategies to fight myopia are developed. Our high-level mathematical description of myopia is translated into clinical applications involving effective treatment and prevention. A regulating mechanism controlling the refraction of the eye is intimately related to myopia. The approach at hand is to review our knowledge about emmetropization, connecting myopia and emmetropization feedback theory to unveil the cause of myopia. Many observations discussed here test the validity of feedback theory positively. The cause of human myopia fits perfectly with the idea that emmetropization, in particular its feedback theory implementation, is the controlling mechanism behind myopia. They include near work, atropine, lenses, defocus, and outdoor versus indoor activities. The key findings in myopia research point the same way: myopia is the result of corrective lenses interfering with emmetropization. We have enough knowledge to answer the question of whether myopia can be reversed or prevented. There is no need to have mathematical skills to apply theory to real cases. It is enough to know the predictions of the feedback theory of emmetropization.

The relationship between education levels, lifestyle, and religion regarding the prevalence of myopia in Israel

BACKGROUND

The ultra-Orthodox Jewish community has a unique lifestyle including minimal outdoor activity and intense, prolonged nearby work, beginning at a very young age. Their prevalence of myopia is extremely high. This paper provides a unique insight into the attitudes of this community towards myopia.

METHODS

Ultra-Orthodox Jewish parents of children who came to the pediatric ophthalmology clinic in one tertiary care and two community centers in ultra-Orthodox-oriented cities were given a questionnaire. Demographic information, along with myopia prevalence in the family, was gathered. In addition, their attitudes and common knowledge regarding myopia were investigated.

RESULTS

161 questioners were collected, mostly completed by mothers (n = 110, 68%). The average number of children per family was 6 (range 1-16). In 148 families (92%) at least one of the parents has myopia. The average parent refraction was - 4.5 diopters (range - 0.5 to 15 diopters). Out of 935 children, 410 (44%) wore glasses. Twelve parents (7%) believe that myopia is a disease and 94 (58%) reported that they are concerned because their child wears glasses. Twenty-four (15%) believe that glasses are a sign of a high education level. Regarding treating myopia progression, 144 (89%) think that myopia progression should be treated, but only 36 (22%) are aware of the available treatments for it.

CONCLUSION

This study examines an insular community with a very high incidence of myopia. In this community most parents think that myopia progression should be treated but most of them are unaware of the currently available treatments.

To Correct or Not Correct? Actual Evidence, Controversy and the Questions That Remain Open

Clinical studies and basic research have attempted to establish a relationship between myopia progression and single vision spectacle wear, albeit with unclear results. Single vision spectacle lenses are continuously used as the control group in myopia control trials. Hence, it is a matter of high relevance to investigate further whether they yield any shift on the refractive state, which could have been masked by being used as a control. In this review, eye development in relation to eyes fully corrected versus those under-corrected is discussed, and new guidelines are provided for the analysis of structural eye changes due to optical treatments. These guidelines are tested and optimised, while ethical implications are revisited. This newly described methodology can be translated to larger clinical trials, finally exerting the real effect of full correction via single vision spectacle lens wear on eye growth and myopia progression.

A global approach to describe retinal defocus patterns

The popularity of myopia treatments based on the peripheral defocus theory has risen. So far, little evidence has emerged around the questions which of these treatments are effective and why. In order to establish a framework that enables clinicians and researchers to acknowledge the possible interactions of different defocus patterns across the retina, different peripheral refractive errors (PRX) of subjects and different designs of optical treatments were evaluated. Dioptric defocus patterns on the retinal level have been obtained by merging the matrices of dioptric defocus maps of the visual field of different scenarios with individual peripheral refractive errors and different optical designs of multifocal contact lenses. The newly obtained matrices were statistically compared using a non-parametric test with familywise error algorithms and multi-comparison tests. Results show that asymmetric peripheral refractive error profiles (temporal or nasal positively skewed) appear to be less prone to be changed by the defocus imposition of multifocal contact lenses than those presenting symmetric patterns (relative peripheral myopia or hyperopia).

Advanced myopia, prevalence and incidence analysis

PURPOSE

Various high-percentage high-incidence medical conditions, acute or chronic, start at a particular age of onset t1 (years), accumulate or progress rapidly, with a system time constant t0 (years), typically from 1 week to 5 years, and then level off at a plateau level [Formula: see text], ultimately affecting 10-95% of the population. This report investigates the prevalence and incidence functions for myopia and high myopia as a function of age.

METHODS

Fundamental prevalence versus time and incidence versus time results allow continuous prediction of myopia and high myopia population fractions as a function of age. This is a retrospective study. Nine reports are calculated with N = 444,600 subjects. There were no interventions other than usual regular eye examinations and subsequent indicated refraction change.

RESULTS

The main result is continuous prediction of myopia prevalence-time data along with incidence rate data (%/year), age of onset (years), system plateau level, and system time constant (years). These parameters apply to progressive myopia and high myopia (R < -6 D), useful over several decades.

CONCLUSIONS

The primary finding of this research is that the prevalence ratio of high myopes (R < -6.0 D) to common myopes is expected to increase from 15% entering college to 45% or more after college and graduate school. These statistics are particularly relevant to the many years of study required by M.D., Ph.D., and M.D./Ph.D. programs.

Refraction data survey: 2nd generation correlation of myopia

The objective herein is to provide refraction data, myopia progression rate, prevalence, and 1st and 2nd generation correlations, relevant to whether myopia is random or inherited. First- and second-generation ocular refraction data are assembled from N = 34 families, average of 2.8 children per family. From this group, data are available from N = 165 subjects. Inter-generation regressions are performed on all the data sets, including correlation coefficient r, and myopia prevalence [%]. Prevalence of myopia is [M] = 38.5 %. Prevalence of high myopes with |R| >6 D is [M-] = 20.5 %. Average refraction is <R> = -1.84 D ± 3.22 (N = 165). For the high myopes, |R| >6 D, prevalence for the parents is [M-] = 25 %, for the 2nd generation [M-] = 16.5 %. Average myopia level for the high myopes, both generations, is <S> = -7.52 D ± 1.31 D (N = 33). Regression parameters are calculated for all the data sets, yielding correlation coefficients in the range r = 0.48-0.72 for some groups of myopes and high myopes, fathers to daughters, and mothers to sons. Also of interest, some categories show essentially no correlation, -0.20 < r < 0.20, indicating that the refractive errors occur randomly. Time series results show myopia diopter rates = -0.50 D/year.