Southern College of Optometry

To refit contact lens (CL) dropouts who dropped out of CLs because of dryness or discomfort into lehfilcon A (TOTAL30®) monthly, spherical CLs to determine the frequency that they can be comfortably refitted into CLs. A 6-month, four-visit, multi-centre, open-label, single-arm, six-site study was conducted in the United States. Adults, 18- to 40-year-old, past CL wearers who dropped out of reusable CLs at least 3 months but not more than 2 years ago because of discomfort or dryness were enrolled. Participants were required to have no significant dry eye symptoms (SPEED scores ≤3). All participants were then fitted into lehfilcon A CLs. The participants were evaluated with the SPEED, a comfort visual analogue scale (VAS; 0–100 scale) and a Likert questionnaire. This study enrolled 61 participants who had a median (interquartile) age of 28 (7) years (78.7

PURPOSE:This study aims to detail the frequency of peripheral retinal findings seen in pediatric patients in a primary care optometry clinic, and evaluate the relative frequency of abnormal and pathological peripheral retinal findings based on myopia magnitude. METHODS:An observational retrospective cross-sectional study analyzed records for 874 patients aged 6-17 years who received routine eye exams at an academic eye care clinic in Memphis, TN between January 2020 and July 2023. Demographic data, refractive error, and peripheral retinal findings, both pathological and non-pathological, were evaluated. Overall frequencies of retinal findings were assessed, and further contrasted between levels of myopia. RESULTS:Abnormal retinal findings were present in 177 participants (20.2%). Pathology was diagnosed in a total of 55 participants (6.3%). The frequency of abnormal peripheral retinal findings increased with myopia severity, with nearly half (44.8%) of patients with 3 or more diopters of myopia having at least one abnormal finding. Significant associations were found between myopia category and the presence of abnormal retinal findings (p < 0.0001), and between myopia category and retinal pathology (p < 0.0001), suggesting that children with 3 or more diopters of myopia have an elevated risk of peripheral retinal pathology detection compared to children with no myopia (odds ratio of 11.5, 95% CI: 4.8-27.8). CONCLUSIONS:These findings highlight the notable frequency of retinal findings in pediatric primary eye care patients. Peripheral retinal pathology is more common in pediatric patients with 3 or more diopters of spherical equivalent myopia, and present across all refractive error statuses. These results underscore the importance of a comprehensive dilated retinal evaluation in children, particularly those with myopia.

PURPOSE:The aim of this study is to evaluate and quantify model performance for commonly used statistical approaches when using data from both eyes of participants. These models highlight different methods of accounting for interocular correlation. METHODS:We simulated a continuous outcome variable, a predictor variable measured per-eye (two correlated values per subject - termed bivariate), and a predictor measured once per subject (termed univariate). Both the outcome and the bivariate predictor shared the same correlation level in all simulations. Correlations were varied 0-0.9 in 0.1 steps, with sample sizes of 50, 100, and 150. Two thousand datasets were simulated under each correlation-sample size combination. The datasets were modeled using single-eye, averaged-eye, and assumed-independent two-eye approaches within linear regression, along with a mixed effects model and a generalized estimating equation (GEE). RESULTS:Mixed effects models, modeling one eye per subject, and averaging eyes within subjects all controlled Type-I error at 0.05 across simulated conditions. GEEs slightly inflated Type-I error, especially with smaller sample sizes. Modeling both eyes independently inflated Type-I error as high as 0.194 in high correlation scenarios. This inflation increased with increasing correlation. For univariate predictors, GEEs, mixed effects modeling and averaging eyes within subjects attained similar power across scenarios. Single-eye modeling resulted in lower power, particularly in low correlation scenarios. For bivariate predictors, mixed effects modeling and GEEs yielded greater power than single-eye or averaged-eye modeling across scenarios. CONCLUSIONS:Mixed effects models and GEEs out-perform other approaches when the predictor of interest is bivariate and correlated, assuming correlations are similar for the predictor and outcome. For univariate predictors, averaging the outcome across eyes within each subject performs similarly to mixed effects modeling. Treating correlated measurements as independent (such as when using data from both eyes without averaging or factored into a model) inflates Type-I error rates and yields inappropriately high power, especially as correlation increases; this modeling approach leads to inference errors and should be avoided.

The Association of Vision Science Librarians (AVSL) is an international organization composed of professional librarians, or persons acting in that capacity, whose collections include vision-related materials and/or whose patrons include vision scientists. Since 1976, AVSL has defined standards for vision science libraries in all capacities, including optometry, ophthalmology, academia, industry, and beyond. As the most recent Standards for Vision Science Libraries was published in 2014, an AVSL member committee was formed in 2024 to review the Standards and consider what a revision should include. Over the course of several months, committee members collaborated with one another, held discussions with other AVSL members, and reviewed current literature. What resulted is a revised set of Standards that aims to address the significant changes that have taken place not only within the field of librarianship, but with the information needs of the vision science professions as well. These updated Standards place the focus on the librarian rather than the library, as many librarian positions that once focused solely on vision science are now expected to manage several disciplines. The aim of this revision is to serve as a starting point for any librarian working with vision science materials and/or serving vision scientist patrons who wishes to develop their knowledge base and skills in this particular field of health sciences librarianship.