Talk:Refractive error

message: As of today, "Refraction error" receives 11,800 Google hits , where as "Refractive error" receives 325,000 . I suggest that Refraction error redirect to Refractive error. -AED 04:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Refractive error" vs. "Refraction error"

message: Also, the caption for the image of the eye examiner and patient used to say that the examiner was using a retinoscope along with a phoropter to measure the patient's refractive error, but upon a closer look, he is only using trial lenses, so I have edited the caption to better suit the image. Bstephens393 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Caption

message: This must be wrong. I suppose it is more than, for example, 500 per 100 000 inhabitants.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.245.124 (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the image caption was wrong: These are not number of people affected by refractive errors, but DALY rates. I changed the caption to reflect that. Iwesp (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistical number of people with refractive error in 2004 

message: The previous definition of an object beyond 8 meters seemed arbitrary and without citation.  I have changed it, but I fail to find a citation confirming my edit.  The articles at Visual acuity and Snellen Chart agree with my edit, but they also have no citation for this information.  I believe the problem is that the fact is universally accepted in the eyecare and vision science communities.  I will wipe the dust of some old textbooks to see if I can get a formal source/citation. Garvin  Talk 15:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes you are correct per . Will add. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you User:Garvin58 remove the reference I added? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware that I did.  Perhaps I had an edit window open that saved over top of your change.  I apologize for the error. Garvin  Talk 12:40, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay no worries Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of distance object 

message: This source about special contact lenses is not particularly good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I can look for a better one.  Hopefully find one of the five studies the article references.Garvin  Talk 17:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Or a review on the topic per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:11, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I may have a PDF (if not, I may still have access to it) from CE at the academy meeting.  I would need to cite the original study and not the CE lecture that referenced it, correct? Garvin  Talk 19:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I will look for a proper reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a great source

message: Proposed Section	Proposed Section	Proposed Section	Proposed Section	Proposed Section	Proposed Section	Proposed Section	Proposed Section	Proposed Section	Proposed Section
Blur is the subjective experience or perception of a defocus aberration within the eye. Blur may appear differently depending on the amount and type of refractive error. The following are some examples of blurred images that may result from refractive errors:
Image:Specrx-letterscamblur.png
Image:Specrx-lettersastigblur.png
Image:Specrx-lettersastigblur2.png
Image:Specrx-letterseyeblur.png
Blur is corrected by focusing light on the retina. This may be done with eyeglasses or contact lenses, or by altering the shape of various eye structures via refractive surgery or special contact lenses.
Eyeglasses sometimes have unwanted effects including magnification or reduction, distortion, color fringes, altered depth perception, etc. Although many people think of lenses as magnifiers, the lenses within eyeglasses improve vision primarily by reducing blur. Depending on the optical setup, they may also produce magnification or reduction of images which may or may not be intentional or desirable.  Often, magnifiers are part of a regimen prescribed by low vision optometrists to help people with reduced vision.
The visual acuity is measured with an eye chart. The eye chart is the background used by eye doctors to compare the patient's visual acuity with that of other individuals who have viewed the chart. Although there are many variations in type of eye chart, the standard one is the Snellen eye chart, which was developed by Dutch eye doctor Hermann Snellen in the 1860s. Usually, these charts show 11 rows of capital letters and it is common that the first row contains one letter (the "big E") and the other rows contain letters that are progressively smaller. Other types of eye charts are the Landolt C and the pediatric Lea test.
With individuals who are unable to read letters for various reasons, including being too young to know the alphabet or having a handicap, eye doctors may use what is called the tumbling E chart. This type of chart is a variation of the Snellen chart and shows the capital letter E at different sizes and rotated in increments of 90 degrees. The scale of the tumbling E chart is the same as with the standard Snellen chart. The eye doctor, in this case, will ask the person being tested to use either hand (with fingers extended) to show in which direction the "fingers" of the E are pointing: right, left, up or down.
In the United States, a 20/20 visual acuity is considered normal. This means that the chart is normally placed at 20 feet distance from the person who is being tested. 20/20 visual acuity is considered normal vision for individuals, but not perfect, as some individuals, although rare, can see at 20 feet what others can see at 10. While vision can be poorer than 20/200, a person with the best-corrected vision (once wearing corrective lenses) of 20/200 is normally considered legally blind.  Individuals with 20/200 vision are normally able to read only the first letter on the chart. Usually the 20/20 line of letters is fourth from the bottom, with 20/15, 20/10 and 20/5 below that. Not many people have 20/10 or better visual acuity, but many animals do, especially birds of prey, which have been estimated to have an acuity of 20/5 or even better. In the United States, individuals who want to get their driver's licenses without corrective lens restrictions must have at least 20/40 visual acuity.
Eye charts do not provide information on peripheral vision, depth perception, color perception, or contrast sensitivity and therefore do not sufficiently characterize the quality of vision, nor assess the health of the eyes. A complete eye examination will include other tests. However, eye charts are useful in deciding whether the patients need eyeglasses or contact lenses to correct their distance visions, and assessing how effective their refractive corrections are.	                	                	                	                	                	                	                	                	
The above is a copy/paste from the Eyeglass prescription article.  It seems like the information fits this article as blur is a symptom of refractive error.  If it were to exist in a complete form here, the section at Eyeglass prescription could be condensed and a "see also: Refractive error" could be added.  I welcome input as to where this section would fit best into the existing article. Garvin  Talk 17:19, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The source "allaboutcision.com" is not very good. This IMO is overly details for here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps not as a direct copy/paste, but a summary of the above would be helpful for emmetropes to understand what the symptoms are for a refractive error.  Perhaps incorporating the info into blur and linking it in this article would keep this article on the rails while still making the information available. Thanks always for your contributions.Garvin  Talk 15:04, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion on blur

message: This
is a primary source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=14638728
is from 1982 "Eva, Paul Riordan. "Refractive change in hyperglycaemia: hyperopia, not myopia." British Journal of Ophthalmology (1982)"
Primary source from 1992 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=1537826
Primary source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21539801
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent changes

message: What ref says that these are types?
"Other terminology include anisometropia, when the two eyes have unequal refractive power, and aniseikonia which is when the magnification power between the eyes differ."
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Types

message: ===Genetic factors===
Add the genetic factors in a tabulated form 
Add the description in a detailed way for the types of the refractive errors and maybe keep a subsection of each 
=== Classification : === 
Keep a figure of the classification table 
=== In the management section of the article ===  
:
Describe each management technique like refractive surgery  , contact lenses , glasses in a simplified way . 
=== In the epidemiology section of the article : ===
 
Add the recent global burden disease study 
Country level burden of Refractive errors 
Highlight the variation of the global burden of the disease around the world 
Neuro1111 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''The augmentation will be done in the following sections''' 

message: Add the recent global burden disease study 
Country level burden of Refractive errors 
Highlight the variation of the global burden of the disease around the world 
Neuro1111 (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the epidemiology section of the article : 

message: Hello, I have read your work plan and the article. Refractive errors are very common and thus should have more information for people to understand it better. Here are some points I would like to make on the article in general as it is now after changes been made.
* The introduction is a little all over the place. It starts off strong but then makes it difficult to understand the organization.
* Epidemiology could be higher because it is lost at the end of the article, and the introduction has some information that could be integrated into the epidemiology section.
* The quantitive calculations of a refractive error could be explained in a much more visual manner or eliminated all together, because this is information for specialists, not as easy to understand for the general public.
* You could mention which cycloplegic agents are used and their duration, and also what they do.
* You could add images to improve the understanding of the types of glasses, and also explain divergent and convergent lenses.
* The cost is not that important, and could be eliminated.
* Some of the bibliography is not open access.
See you around. Monicro98 (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: There should be a section on animal refractive errors as considering we have an article on myopia in animals and it is generally known that many animals suffer from refractive errors that aren't just myopia too. 2001:FB1:97:82A5:18BB:2C9:745A:714C (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a section on animals