Monovision slows juvenile myopia progression unilaterally

British Journal of Ophthalmology

Volumn 89, Issue 9, 2005, Pages 1196-1200

  Phillips, J R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

A SCAN; ACCOMMODATION; ACCOMMODATION PARALYSIS; ANISOMETROPIA; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DISEASE COURSE; ECHOGRAPHY; EVALUATION; EYE REFRACTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MONOVISION SPECTACLE CORRECTION; MYOPIA; NEW ZEALAND; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING; RETINOSCOPY; SCHOOL CHILD; SPECTACLES; VITREOUS BODY;

ACCOMMODATION, OCULAR; CHILD; DISEASE PROGRESSION; EYEGLASSES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MYOPIA; OPTOMETRY; REFRACTION, OCULAR; TIME FACTORS; VISION, MONOCULAR; VISUAL ACUITY;

EID: 24044452549     PISSN: 00071161     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bjo.2004.064212     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Schaeffel F, Classer A, Howland HC. Accommodation, refractive error and eye growth in chickens. Vis Res 1988;28:639-57.
2. Hung LF, Crawford ML, Smith EL. Spectacle lenses alter eye growth and the refractive status of young monkeys. Nat Med 1995;1:761-5.
3. Gwiazda J, Thorn F, Bauer J, et al. Myopic children show insufficient accommodative response to blur. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1993;34:690-4.
4. Leung JT, Brown B. Progression of myopia in Hong Kong Chinese schoolchildren is slowea by wearing progressive lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1999;76:346-54.
5. Edwards MH, Li RW, Lam CS, et al. The Hong Kong progressive lens myopia control study: study design and main findings. Invest Opnthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:2852-8.
6. Gwiazda J, Hyman L, Hussein M, et al. A randomized clinical trial of progressive addition lenses versus single vision lenses on the progression of myopia in children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:1492-500.
7. Saw SM, Shih-Yen EC, Koh A, et al. Interventions to retard myopia progression in children: an evidence-based update. Ophthalmology 2002;109:415-21.
8. Zadnik K, Mutti DO. How applicable are animal myopia models to human juvenile onset myopia? Vis Res 1995;35:1283-8.
9. Chung K, Mohidin N, O'Leary DJ. Undercorrection of myopia enhances rather than inhibits myopia progression. Vis Res 2002;42:2555-9.
10. Rutstein RP, Marsh-Tootle W, London R. Changes in refractive error for exotropes treated with overminus lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1989;66:487-91.
11. Goss DA. Overcorrection as a means of slowing myopic progression. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1984;61:85-93.
12. Young FA, Leary GA. Accommodation and vitreous chamber pressure: a proposed mechanism for myopia. In: Grosvenor TG, Flom MC, eds. Refractive anomalies: research and clinical applications. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1991:301-9.
13. Drexler W, Findl O, Schmetterer L, et al. Eye elongation during accommodation in humans: differences between emmetropes and myopes. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998;39:2140-7.
14. Shum PJ, Ko LS, Ng CL, et al. A biometric study of ocular changes during accommodation. Am J Ophthalmol 1993;115:76-81.
15. Back A, Grant T, Hine N. Comparative visual performance of three presbyopic contact lens corrections. Optom Vis Sci 1992;69:474-80.
16. Pardhan S, Gilchrist J. The effect of monocular defocus on binocular contrast sensitivity. Ophthalmic Physiol Opt 1990;10:33-6.
17. Johannsdottir KR, Stelmach LB. Monovision: a review of the scientific literature. Optom Vis Sci 2001;78:646-51.
18. Coren S, Kaplan CP. Patterns of ocular dominance. Am J Optom Arch Am Acad Optom 1973;50:283-92.
19. Owens H, Garner LF, Yap M, et al. Age dependence of ocular biometric measurements under cycloplegia with tropicamide and cyclopentolate. Clin Exp Optom 1998;81:159-62.
20. Manny RE, Hussein M, Scheiman M, et al. Tropicamide (1%): an effective cycloplegic agent for myopic children. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:1728-35.
21. Thibos LN, Wheeler W, Horner D. Power vectors: an application of Fourier analysis to the description and statistical analysis of refractive error. Optom Vis Sci 1997;74:367-75.
22. Rosenfield M, Portello JK, Blustein GH, et al. Comparison of clinical techniques to assess the near accommodative response. Optom Vis Sci 1996;73:382-8.
23. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, et al. SAS system for mixed models. Cary, NC: SAS Intstitute Inc, 1996.
24. Flitcroft DI, Morley JW. Accommodation in binocular contour rivalry. Vis Res 1997;37:121-5.
25. Oguz H, Oguz V. The effects of experimentally induced anisometropia on stereopsis. J Pediatr Ophthalmol Strabismus 2000;37:214-18.
26. Anderson AJ, Vingrys AJ. Small samples: does size matter? Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2001;42:1411-13.
27. Thorn F, Held R, Gwiazda J. The dynamics of myopia progression onset and offset revealed by exponential growth functions fit to individual longitudinal refractive data. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:E abstract 2866.
28. Grice K, Thorn F, McLellan J, et al. Myopia progression in children is best described by an exponential growth function. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1998;39:S279.
29. Fulk GW, Cyert LA, Parker DE. A randomized trial of the effect of single-vision vs bifocal lenses on myopia progression in children with esophoria. Optom Vis Sci 2000;77:395-401.
30. Bennett AG, Rabbetts RB. Distribution and ocular dioptrics of ametropia. Clinical visual optics, 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, 1989:485-501.
31. Zhu X, Winawer JA, Wallman J. Potency of myopic defocus in spectacle lens compensation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2003;44:2818-27.