Scientific Evidence behind Some Aspects of Behavioural Optometry

The Scientific Evidence behind Some Aspects of Behavioural Optometry & Paediatric Optometry

Over the years, behavioural optometry has been criticised by others, usually those with no optometric qualifications or experience. What needs to be remembered is that “behavioural optometry” is a very broad field, made up of a wide variety of optometrists providing a wide variety of treatments & interventions, from the conventional to the controversial. You could say the same thing about many broad fields of human endeavour, for example teaching, psychology, sports coaching, medicine, marketing, etc.

At Custom EyeCare, we practice a fairly conservative or conventional mode of behavioural optometry. We keep an open mind to new treatments and new ideas, and we understand that large scientific studies don’t “just happen”, but someone has to design them, someone has to do them, and someone has to pay for them. Having said that, we do avoid the more controversial or unsupported aspects of behavioural optometry, and instead stick to conventional, proven treatments where needed.

Just a few of the many scientific journal articles supporting what we do are found below.

 

Iyer J, Harris P. The effect of low plus lenses on reading rate and comprehension. Optom Vis Perf 2013;1(2):59-61.

Quaid P, Simpson T. Association between reading speed, cycloplegic refractive error, and oculomotor function in reading disabled children versus controls. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol (2013) 251:169–187.

Uncorrected Hyperopia and Preschool Early Literacy: Results of the Vision In Preschoolers – Hyperopia In Preschoolers (VIP-HIP) Study. Ophthalmology. 2016 Apr; 123(4): 681–689.

Williams WR, Latif AHA, Hannington L, et al Hyperopia and educational attainment in a primary school cohort Archives of Disease in Childhood 2005;90:150-153.

Shankar S1, Evans MA, Bobier WR. Hyperopia and emergent literacy of young children: pilot study. Optom Vis Sci. 2007 Nov;84(11):1031-8.

Simons HD1, Gassler PA. Vision anomalies and reading skill: a meta-analysis of the literature. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1988 Nov;65(11):893-904.

Rosner J, Rosner J. The relationship between moderate hyperopia and academic achievement: how much plus is enough? J Am Optom Assoc. 1997 Oct;68(10):648-50.

Roch-Levecq AC, Brody BL, Thomas RG, Brown SI. Ametropia, preschoolers’ cognitive abilities, and effects of spectacle correction. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Feb;126(2):252-8; quiz 161. doi: 10.1001/archophthalmol.2007.36.

Grisham JD, Simons HD. Refractive error and the reading process: a literature analysis. J Am Optom Assoc. 1986 Jan;57(1):44-55.

Sohrab-Jam G. Eye movement patterns and reading performance in poor readers: immediate effects of convex lenses indicated by book retinoscopy. Am J Optom Physiol Opt. 1976 Nov;53(11):720-6.

Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial Investigator Group. A Randomized Clinical Trial of Treatments for Symptomatic Convergence Insufficiency in Children. Arch Ophthalmol. 2008 Oct; 126(10): 1336–1349. doi: 10.1001/archopht.126.10.1336

Larrabee PE Jr, Jones FR. Behavioral effects of low plus lenses. Percept Mot Skills. 1980 Dec;51(3 Pt 1):913-4.

http://pedig.jaeb.org/Publications.aspx

Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group, A Randomized Trial Comparing Part-time Patching with Observation for Intermittent Exotropia in Children 12 to 35 Months of Age. Ophthalmology. 2015 Aug;122(8):1718-25. doi: 10.1016/j.ophtha.2015.04.025. Epub 2015 Jun 11.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4253733/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23755872

[more to be added when time permits…]