Talk:Behavioral optometry

message: In 1944-1945 the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore undertook a study of the use of behavioral optometry in the treatment of myopia. The training was undertaken by A. M. Skeffington and his associates, who traveled to Baltimore for the purpose, but who used a clinic outside the hospital, and were carefully kept apart from the staff in the Wilmer Institute who assessed their progress. The 103 candidates were school students and young adults with uncomplicated myopia. Independent examination before and after training was undertaken using Snellen charts, and use of a retinoscope after introduction of a cycloplegic agent. The examining physicians "were impressed by a psychologic improvement in a number of patients. Some patients while exhibiting no material change in their visual acuity, were nevertheless convinced that they saw better and that they used their eyes with greater satisfaction to themselves." The objective results were as follows. Of the 103 subjects:
*30 showed some improvement on all measures
*31 showed overall improvement, but not on all measures
*32 showed no overall change
*10 showed deterioration of vision
The report's author concludes "With the possible exception of educating some patients to interpret blurred retinal images more carefully and of convincing some others that they could see better even though there was no actual improvement, this study indicates that the visual training used on these patients was of no value for the treatment of myopia."
A review of the data undertaken in 1991 by two behavioural optometrists and published in the Journal of Behavioural Optometry, concludes that there were statistically significant positive changes in visual acuity due to the exercises and that the original conclusion that myopia reduction vision training is ineffective is unfounded. Trachtman, J N, Giambalvo, V, The Baltimore Myopia Study, 40 Years Later, J of Behavioral Optometry, v 2, No. 2, 1991, p. 47, http://www.oepf.org/sites/default/files/journals/jbo-volume-2-issue-2/2-2%20trachtman.pdf Visual neuro-rehabilitation for congenital/developmental concerns as well as visual concerns related to trauma and pathology are well founded.
The above content is problematic for a bunch of reasons.  Little things like the embedded external link in the last sentence, which we don't do here.  But larger, is this is WP:UNDUE weight on a single, very old trial.  Per WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS we don't do this for medical treatments (and the whole first paragraph is sourced from a very old WP:PRIMARY source - this is notproperly sourced).  This ~might~ be interesting in a history section, if the goal here is to tell the story.  But this is not the way we talk about efficacy of interventions in WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This is completely undue and gives us an article with a skewed POV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The research section should be a discussion of modern research based on high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We already have an article with a skewed POV. That POV is that B.O. is fringe quackery, and anything that suggests otherwise doesn't belong in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We just reflect the best available evidence. Bring a high quality secondary source and we can discuss how to paraphrase it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So if high quality secondary sources are required throughout, the use of a ranting blog (Novella) is clearly unacceptable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Your work - that would be WP:Original research, no? We don't do that. With regard to your colleagues, please be aware of WP:MEAT. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What does Alex do? While he is a long term medical encyclopedia writer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Peaceful07, As I state here, I have not received any email reply from you. Please try again. Famousdog  (c) 08:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of single study 

message: The Institute of Optometry has this to say about BO. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of what they say seems reasonable and even-handed. Are they a reliable secondary source? Lou Sander (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official position of the IOO 

message: I'm hoping that WP:CYCLE can be of help here. An anonymous editor recently made what seems to me to have been an informed and articulate edit to this article, complete with numerous citations from what appear to be reliable sources. It was reverted within minutes, with an edit summary of "fringe/pov". It seems to me that this edit is neither promoting a fringe topic as mainstream, nor advancing a point of view. IMHO, the reverting editor needs to give us more explanation of his action. The article before the reversion is HERE.  Lou Sander (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What specifically did you think was okay? I saw poor/off-topic source and fringe advocacy (as the edit put, in article space: "Our main purpose is to prove that Barrett’s paper was flawed at the time or publication and has not been validated by evidence since" !) Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I would have removed it as well. It's a major rewrite of the article, with a reversal in point of view, clear advertising problems, all likely written against a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you a new contributor to this page or are you editing after a WP:LOGOUT ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

text: So what? Homeopathy and Reiki are taught all over the place too. We need high-quality sources and we are obliged to follow them. Barrett's paper is a high-quality source in Wikipedia's terms. I know some BO practitioners don't like it but that's not our problem. Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

text: We go by what good secondary sources (WP:MEDRS) say, not your WP:Original research. This is basic policy. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

text: We follow the WP:PAGs. At the moment the settled verdict on BO as published appears in the Barrett paper. If there are better sources, produce them (I've looked and drawn a blank) - but Wikipedia is obliged to reflect accepted knowledge on this topic as published in high-quality sources. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, but statements like this demonstrate a total lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines. Such statements are also typical from editors with a financial conflict of interest, as is . Regarding your conflict of interest: Disclose what you want. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent productive edit reverted. Needs discussion. 

message: This article is clearly not representative of the facts about Behavioural Optometry. There is a huge volume of evidence that could be provided here that is scientific, credible and valid.
The Barrett paper quoted is an old meta review which has been shown to be flawed. It was inaccurate at publication, but its basic message is misrepresented and time has proven this to be even more so.
The attache file is an example of the problem and also provides substantial evidence (not all) to show that behavioural Optometry is science based.
I suggest that revision is needed urgently. Alexbrn I would be pleased to discuss with you.
Ideology Consulting (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MEDRS and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The OP was blocked. Bon courage (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

text: Find MEDRS sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree that the sources did not meet MEDRS in the manner needed. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased and Outdated 

message: Dear All,
Happy New Year. I wondered how all of this was going? My American colleagues are interested in interacting with yourselves so I thought that I would make contact again.
Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that Behavioral optometry got merged into Vision therapy. This article is just a WP:REDIRECT. To discuss article content, please go to Talk:Vision therapy. Bon courage (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that the most recent comment before this section was from eight years ago, I think it may be prudent to redirect this talk page as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased and Outdated (2)