|
|
|
|
|
by hnenjoyer_93
843 days ago
|
|
This seems great, but I have 2 questions: 1. Since this is for "early myopia", does it mean it is useless for adults? If not, which groups of adults will find it useful? 2. What do you think about this and is this even related? > The overall findings are equivocal with under‐correction causing a faster rate of myopia progression. There is no strong evidence of benefits from un‐correction, monovision or over‐correction. Hence, current clinical advice advocates for the full‐correction of myopia https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1111/cxo.12978 Edit to clarify, full correction with glasses should mean always seeing the sharpest picture possible |
|
2. I think undercorrection is somewhat related. I have not yet read the study you linked, I usually refer to this review for undercorrection. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9213207/ I think it would be possible to achieve some results that way as some of the studies from the review suggest, but in practice it is difficult to precisely control the amount of myopic defocus on the retina that you get that way. Most of the time you get no myopic defocus at all due to accomodation and with strong undercorrection you risk losing the visual cues to the sign of defocus, which results in deprivation myopia. I think this is the reason that MiSight contact lenses are known to be effective, while naive undercorrection has mixed results at best.