Buffy, I don’t want to jinx myself, but I want to have a go at a complete rewrite of our work on longitudinal myopia. Essentially, I want to cut it down to the minimum size, skipping the more advanced bits.
If I can do that, then I’ll have a go at submitting it to a couple of places – aiming high rather than low.
mollwollfumble said:
Buffy, I don’t want to jinx myself, but I want to have a go at a complete rewrite of our work on longitudinal myopia. Essentially, I want to cut it down to the minimum size, skipping the more advanced bits.If I can do that, then I’ll have a go at submitting it to a couple of places – aiming high rather than low.
buffy, did you start there in 1985 or 1989?
1985.
I have emailed you.
buffy said:
1985.I have emailed you.
Thanks.
Next question, what’s the largest number of participants ever in any myopia study?
I’m interested in reading their paper.
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
1985.I have emailed you.
Thanks.
Next question, what’s the largest number of participants ever in any myopia study?
I’m interested in reading their paper.
I’ll have to have a look at the references we used. I want to go out and plant some seed. Then I’ll come in and see what I can find. There are some very big cross sectional ones, but I’m not sure about the longitudinal ones.
I think the Orinda study is probably the biggest one dealing with myopia. There are studies of refractive error with bigger numbers, but they are not all myopes. Major author to look for would be Zadnik.
buffy said:
I think the Orinda study is probably the biggest one dealing with myopia. There are studies of refractive error with bigger numbers, but they are not all myopes. Major author to look for would be Zadnik.
Oh, and Mutti. They’ve done quite a bit of stuff. But mainly with children, not over a lifetime.
buffy said:
1985.I have emailed you.
I mean, that’s impressive, but they may have to wait a few years to receive that email…
Arts said:
buffy said:
1985.I have emailed you.
I mean, that’s impressive, but they may have to wait a few years to receive that email…
Today, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first email ever sent.
https://www.expressnews.com/lifestyle/article/Meet-the-San-Antonio-man-who-sent-the-first-email-14574855.php
If you look at what we did, moll, there were very few long term assessments of “normal” clinical populations. Most of the information is drawn from studies about trying to slow, or reduce myopia. And long term seems to be defined as something like 2 or 3 years. Bucklers (our reference 12) was really the only one that did anything like what we did and that was 1953.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1324210/
dv said:
Arts said:
buffy said:
1985.I have emailed you.
I mean, that’s impressive, but they may have to wait a few years to receive that email…
Today, we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first email ever sent.
https://www.expressnews.com/lifestyle/article/Meet-the-San-Antonio-man-who-sent-the-first-email-14574855.php
the first email received was many years later. it just hung around in the ether for a while.
buffy said:
buffy said:
I think the Orinda study is probably the biggest one dealing with myopia. There are studies of refractive error with bigger numbers, but they are not all myopes. Major author to look for would be Zadnik.
Oh, and Mutti. They’ve done quite a bit of stuff. But mainly with children, not over a lifetime.
Orinda, Zadnik, Mutti. Will look up. Thanks.
I want to read up about largest lateral studies, ones with thousands or tens of thousands of participants if possible. Or to put it another way, I’m interested in how our lateral slices through the longitudinal study compare to lateral slices in much bigger studies.
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:
buffy said:
I think the Orinda study is probably the biggest one dealing with myopia. There are studies of refractive error with bigger numbers, but they are not all myopes. Major author to look for would be Zadnik.
Oh, and Mutti. They’ve done quite a bit of stuff. But mainly with children, not over a lifetime.
Orinda, Zadnik, Mutti. Will look up. Thanks.
I want to read up about largest lateral studies, ones with thousands or tens of thousands of participants if possible. Or to put it another way, I’m interested in how our lateral slices through the longitudinal study compare to lateral slices in much bigger studies.
Oh, while asking, do you know what the most cited myopia study would be?
mollwollfumble said:
mollwollfumble said:
buffy said:Oh, and Mutti. They’ve done quite a bit of stuff. But mainly with children, not over a lifetime.
Orinda, Zadnik, Mutti. Will look up. Thanks.
I want to read up about largest lateral studies, ones with thousands or tens of thousands of participants if possible. Or to put it another way, I’m interested in how our lateral slices through the longitudinal study compare to lateral slices in much bigger studies.
Oh, while asking, do you know what the most cited myopia study would be?
Just found this. I’ll look.
Google Scholar seems to think this one?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612602724
Is this any help?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6288521/
And here?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123161/
quote=buffy
> Google Scholar seems to think this one?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612602724
Yuk. No thanks. Looking it up now to see how many study participants. Totally meta-analysis. Figure 1 is just a definition of myopia – well, duh, who would be reading the article without already knowing that. Figure 2 looks like just a lack of complete reporting. People in India, China and Malaya had other more important things to worry about in 1987 to 1992. Sci-hub crashed twice so can’t read full paper. But don’t see any charts of incidence vs strength there. Can you see how many participants in the study in total, and in “1987 to 1992”?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6288521/
“Top 100 cited articles in ophthalmic epidemiology between 2006 and 2016”.
We’re not doing epidemiology so it’s not particularly relevant. I wonder if any of the studies on the environmental causes of myopia can explain the observed drop in number of myopia cases in the 20 years prior to 1895.
But let’s see. 9 articles on myopia.
“The most frequently cited article in the field of ophthalmic epidemiology was published in Ophthalmology by Rose KA and colleagues in 2008 into the topic of myopia, highlighting that higher levels of total time spent outdoors were associated with less myopia”. ¿So what – correlation does not imply causation, and there’s no way whatever to separate cause and effect in this case. “Association between myopia and glaucomatous optic nerve damage”, relevant for glaucoma perhaps but not myopia incidence.
Possibly useful as a list of 59 journals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123161/
Again epidemiology, not useful. Starts the abstract with an unproved assumption. Let’s see whether there’s any proof in the article. Nah, another meta-analysis. No proof. No use, just unfounded conjecture.
So those three aren’t any use, all meta-analysis, and conjecture based on minimal information. Apart from use as a list of 59 journals that may accept our publication.
Let’s go back to what you said earlier.
buffy said:
I think the Orinda study is probably the biggest one dealing with myopia. There are studies of refractive error with bigger numbers, but they are not all myopes. Major author to look for would be Zadnik.Oh, and Mutti. They’ve done quite a bit of stuff. But mainly with children, not over a lifetime.
“Initial cross-sectional results from the Orinda Longitudinal Study of Myopia.
Zadnik K1, Mutti DO, Friedman NE, Adams AJ.”
“https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8233371”:
“predominantly Caucasian children”
“Cross-sectional results from 530 children ages 5 to 12”.
530 isn’t many. When you add in the time factor, that’s only in the same size ballpark as our study. It’d be strange if we turned out to have the biggest lateral study of myopia (at certain ages) as well as the longest longitudinal study.
Hold on, only a relatively small proportion of the Orinda study are actually myopes? So of the only 28 children in the study of age 12, fewer than half are actually myopes?
I think I can use their Figure 1a.
“This sample’s refractive error decreased toward emmetropia with age from an average of +0.73 D at age 6 years to an average of +0.50 D by age 12 years.”
What!? That doesn’t look right.
(Whew, computer came back after half hour power outage, didn’t lose this post).
mollwollfumble said:
quote=buffy> Google Scholar seems to think this one?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612602724
Yuk. No thanks. Looking it up now to see how many study participants. Totally meta-analysis. Figure 1 is just a definition of myopia – well, duh, who would be reading the article without already knowing that. Figure 2 looks like just a lack of complete reporting. People in India, China and Malaya had other more important things to worry about in 1987 to 1992. Sci-hub crashed twice so can’t read full paper. But don’t see any charts of incidence vs strength there. Can you see how many participants in the study in total, and in “1987 to 1992”?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6288521/
“Top 100 cited articles in ophthalmic epidemiology between 2006 and 2016”.We’re not doing epidemiology so it’s not particularly relevant. I wonder if any of the studies on the environmental causes of myopia can explain the observed drop in number of myopia cases in the 20 years prior to 1895.
But let’s see. 9 articles on myopia.
“The most frequently cited article in the field of ophthalmic epidemiology was published in Ophthalmology by Rose KA and colleagues in 2008 into the topic of myopia, highlighting that higher levels of total time spent outdoors were associated with less myopia”. ¿So what – correlation does not imply causation, and there’s no way whatever to separate cause and effect in this case. “Association between myopia and glaucomatous optic nerve damage”, relevant for glaucoma perhaps but not myopia incidence.
Possibly useful as a list of 59 journals.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1123161/
Again epidemiology, not useful. Starts the abstract with an unproved assumption. Let’s see whether there’s any proof in the article. Nah, another meta-analysis. No proof. No use, just unfounded conjecture.
So those three aren’t any use, all meta-analysis, and conjecture based on minimal information. Apart from use as a list of 59 journals that may accept our publication.
Let’s go back to what you said earlier.
buffy said:
I think the Orinda study is probably the biggest one dealing with myopia. There are studies of refractive error with bigger numbers, but they are not all myopes. Major author to look for would be Zadnik.Oh, and Mutti. They’ve done quite a bit of stuff. But mainly with children, not over a lifetime.
“Initial cross-sectional results from the Orinda Longitudinal Study of Myopia.
Zadnik K1, Mutti DO, Friedman NE, Adams AJ.”
“https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8233371”:“predominantly Caucasian children”
“Cross-sectional results from 530 children ages 5 to 12”.530 isn’t many. When you add in the time factor, that’s only in the same size ballpark as our study. It’d be strange if we turned out to have the biggest lateral study of myopia (at certain ages) as well as the longest longitudinal study.
Hold on, only a relatively small proportion of the Orinda study are actually myopes? So of the only 28 children in the study of age 12, fewer than half are actually myopes?
I think I can use their Figure 1a.
“This sample’s refractive error decreased toward emmetropia with age from an average of +0.73 D at age 6 years to an average of +0.50 D by age 12 years.”
What!? That doesn’t look right.
(Whew, computer came back after half hour power outage, didn’t lose this post).
I told you what we had was rare! Most of the research has been done recently and on ways to slow down the progression of myopia. Without any good basic “how does it normally progress?” stuff to compare to. But we are not “Myopia Researchers”, what would we know?!
I’ve got to cook tea. I’ll have another go shortly at finding something.
I’m going through this at the moment. I’ll check the references they give for the “Background” section.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6735780/
I’ll pick out ones which might be worthwhile following up:
Mohindra I, Held R. Fledelius HC, Alsbirk PH, Goldschmidt E, editors. Refraction in humans from birth to five years. Third International Conference on Myopia Copenhagen, August 24–27, 1980. 1981. pp. 19–27. In: eds. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands;
Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, Held R. Emmetropization and the progression of manifest refraction in children followed from infancy to puberty. Clin Vis Sci. 1993;8:337–344.
Giordano L, Friedman DS, Repka MX, et al. Prevalence of refractive error among preschool children in an urban population: the Baltimore Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2009;116:739–746.
Wen G, Tarczy-Hornoch K, McKean-Cowdin R, et al. Prevalence of myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism in non-Hispanic white and Asian children: Multi-Ethnic Pediatric Eye Disease Study. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:2109–2116.
Rudnicka AR, Kapetanakis VV, Wathern AK, et al. Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of childhood myopia, a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis: implications for aetiology and early prevention. Br J Ophthalmol. 2016;100:882–890
Rahi JS, Cumberland PM, Peckham CS. Myopia over the lifecourse: prevalence and early life influences in the 1958 British birth cohort. Ophthalmology. 2011;118:797–804.
Bullimore MA, Reuter KS, Jones LA, Mitchell GL, Zoz J, Rah MJ. The Study of Progression of Adult Nearsightedness (SPAN): design and baseline characteristics. Optom Vis Sci. 2006;83:594–604.
de Jong P. Myopia: its historical contexts. Br J Ophthalmol. 2018;102:1021–1027.
French AN, Morgan IG, Burlutsky G, Mitchell P, Rose KA. Prevalence and 5- to 6-year incidence and progression of myopia and hyperopia in Australian schoolchildren. Ophthalmology. 2013;120:1482–1491.
That’s some to be going on with. I’ve simply read the list of references and picked out what might be relevent. I left out a lot, because much of the stuff has been done on Asian and Chinese children, which is not comparable with our cohort of white Australians.
This has a reasonable overview of the subject of myopia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6023584/
I don’t like the way they don’t differentiate between Asian and non Asian and just lump all the research in together. The current “myopia epidemic” is actually mostly an Asian phenomenon.
And mostly South East Asian at that.
This one is interesting even though it’s a systematic review and meta-analysis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4941141/
Global variations and time trends in the prevalence of childhood myopia, a systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis: implications for aetiology and early prevention
Can you pick anything useful out of this one?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504030/
Increasing Prevalence of Myopia in Europe and the Impact of Education
And if you skip the histology section, this is an interesting sidetrack into the “history” of myopia
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6059036/
Myopia: its historical contexts
I’m going to watch TV. But later I am actually going to read that history one. It looks interesting.
Last one for tonight. I forgot about the local VIP study. But you have to pick out the myopia bits, because it was done as a general study.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/411882
Sorry, that wasn’t the last one. This one is very interesting in terms of lies, damned lies and statistics.
“Impact of varying the definition of myopia on estimates of prevalence and associations with risk factors: time for an approach that serves research, practice and policy”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6173820/
As I think I mentioned to you before, I am cynical about the “new” definition of “high myopia”. Since I trained, it was greater than or equal to -6.00D. Recently it was changed to greater than or equal to -5.00D. The cynic in me says…wheee!!! more high myopes for the research!!
At the stroke of a pen.
(-5.00D is quite shortsighted. After you get to -4.00D, corrected vision is better with contact lenses than with glasses simply because optically speaking, moving the lens from the spectacle plane onto the surface of the eye gives a bigger image at the retina. But never the less, for a great many years, the definition was greater than or equal to -6.00D, and the change makes it a lot more difficult to compare older research with newer stuff)
There you go moll. Maybe that lot will keep you busy all night!
buffy said:
Last one for tonight. I forgot about the local VIP study. But you have to pick out the myopia bits, because it was done as a general study.https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaophthalmology/fullarticle/411882
Better. I’m looking for graphs like this one, from that paper. But why oh why do they have nothing between -0.5 and -2.5 diopters? 0.25 dioptre intervals is what I’m hoping for.
Getting really crap font problems as well. Partly due to Firefox? Partly due to Graphics options on Windows?
