Summary
This is a critical evaluation of the article Peripheral refraction in myopic children wearing Orthokeratology and gas permeable lenses; it delves into the paper analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the authors’ arguments and even offers an opinion on how to eliminate the found weakness. The material used as a basis for this criticism is the aforementioned article only.
Peripheral refraction in myopic children wearing Orthokeratology and gas-permeable lenses
The abstract of the paper briefly explains the aim of the aims intended when publishing the paper. Even though similarities can be found in both adults and children who wear the OK lens there is no data concerning the use of gas permeable lens by adults and as such no comparison can be made. Its inclusion in the study appears to be of no consequence because even after the three months that the study was carried out there were no significant changes between the baseline results and the final results. This fact is coupled with a lack of corresponding data from the adult participants.
Strengths
Although the abstract speaks very little about GP lenses it clearly shows that they brought about no significant change in either the central or peripheral refraction of the test subjects. On the other hand, the OK lenses are reported to reduce peripheral hyperopia in both children and adults. The abstract reports the OK lenses as potential tools for the control of myopia in children.
The article on peripheral refraction is an academic paper focusing on vision and visual impairment and attempts to offer a solution based on years of research and a successful case study of 16 subjects from Asia. It starts off with a strong argument based on the studies of Hoogerheide et al, in which the test subjects were pilots. It was noted during the tests that pilots with emmetropic refraction would later have a refractive switch to the myopic side because of their moderately hyperopic peripheral vision and vice versa.
Weaknesses
On page 5 the article clearly states that there is no known cause for the increase of myopia up to five years from its onset. Kang & Swarbrick,
2011, established that GP lenses relatively reduced peripheral hyperopia and increased the rate of refraction regardless of whether the subjects wore contact lenses or not. These studies contradict the statement in the abstract which declares that GP lenses had no effect on either central or peripheral vision. The writer also acknowledges that their study had limitations in that they did not use cycloplegia which would have caused the subjects to have reservations (Kang & Swarbrick, 2011).
What I would have done to eliminate weaknesses in the paper
I would have cited studies and cases that supported my case and even added to my findings and conclusions. I would have left out the part about not using cycloplegia as including this in the article leaves ample room for rivals and critiques to discredit my findings as inconclusive, biased, and not thorough.
Lessons from the article
It is evident from the studies showcased in the article that myopia correction is possible. I have also learned that the development of myopia can be slowed down.
Opinion
The article is a revelation on the subject of gradual visual loss, its causes, and remedies. It is well researched and thorough, giving appropriate examples and detailed studies and techniques of testing determining and evaluating subjects with peripheral myopia and other related conditions.
Conclusion
Peripheral myopia is a serious problem and adversely affects a wide range of people from all walks of life. This article offers a lifeline of hope for those affected as it shows that this problem need not be a problem anymore.
Reference
Swarbrick H. & Kang P. (2011). Peripheral refraction in myopic children wearing Orthokeratology and gas-permeable lenses. Optometry and Vision Science, Vol 88 (4), Pp. 467-482.