Children who were abnormally hypermetropic at the age of6 months were randomly allocated treatment with spectacles or no treatment. The eventual incidence of squint was the same in both groups (approximately 24%). The last known visual acuity of the two groups was not significantly different either. Therefore there is no indication to screen infants with a view to preventing squint/amblyopia by optical correction of hypermetropia. If, however, the children allocated treatment are divided into two subgroups -those who wore glasses consistently and those who probably or certainly did not do so -the incidence of squint was the same, but the last known acuities of those who consistently wore glasses may be better than those who did not do so. This suggests that it may yet prove possible to prevent severe amblyopia.
In a sample of children used to assess the value of optical correction of hypermetropia from the age of 6 months the refraction of the most hypermetropic meridian frequently became less than 3'5 D as the children grew. When this occurred, the incidence of squint was significantly less (p<0001) and the last known acuity after treatment was significantly better (p<0001) than when it did not. This process of emmetropisation appears to have been impeded by the consistent wearing of hypermetropic spectacle correction from the age of6 months. When we assessed the results of our trial of optical correction of hypermetropia from the age of 1 year' we suspected two things: (1) the children who squinted were those who remained hypermetropic, but if the initial level of hypermetropia in a child decreased the prognosis for squint and amblyopia was better; (2) children drawn for treatment with spectacles appeared to remain hypermetropic. We could not prove either ofthese suspicions, principally because we did not know what was a 'normal' amount of hypermetropia at a given age. We therefore decided to look again for an association between reduction of hypermetropia and the visual outcome in children included in our recent trial of treating hypermetropia from the age of 6 months.9 In order to do this we arbitrarily chose a level of hypermetropia below which we deemed that emmetropisation occurred. Since the criterion for entry into this trial was the level of hypermetropia in the most hypermetropic meridian of a pair of eyes, we continued to use this method of recording hypermetropia. We also report observations on the possible effect of wearing spectacles on the process of emmetropisation. Patients and methodsThe sample of children is the one reported in our trial of treating abnormal hypermetropia with spectacles from the age of 6 months9 in an attempt to prevent squint and amblyopia. Details of the protocol used to conduct that trial were reported in that paper.9 Three hundred and seventy two infants, aged 6 months, with +4-00 or more dioptres hypermetropia in one or more meridia of either eye were randomly allocated treatment with spectacles or no treatment, and followed up as effectively as possible. If a child in either group developed a squint, or was found (usually at age 31/2 years) to have reduced visual acuity, he/she was treated conventionally with spectacles, occlusion, or operation as appropriate. The presence of squint was diagnosed with the cover test. Visual acuity was recorded only with Linear Sheridan-Gardiner or Snellen tests. All the refractions were done by the same person (RMI) after cycloplegia with cyclopentolate 1%. The refraction reported is the amount of hypermetropia in the most hypermetropic meridian after + 1-75 D has been subtracted from the retinoscopy findings of all meridia of a pair of eyes. Information abut the refractions, presence of squint, and the last known visual acuity after any additional treatment had been given is now available for 287 of the children.The first purpose of ...
SUMMARY Spectacle correction of unusually hypermetropic refractions from age 1 year did not reduce the incidence of squint or amblyopia, nor did it lead to a reduction in the severity of residual amblyopia after subsequent occlusion.
BackgroundTwo important influences on students' evaluations of teaching are relationship and professor effects. Relationship effects reflect unique matches between students and professors such that some professors are unusually effective for some students, but not for others. Professor effects reflect inter-rater agreement that some professors are more effective than others, on average across students.AimsWe attempted to forecast students' evaluations of live lectures from brief, video-recorded teaching trailers.SampleParticipants were 145 college students (74% female) enrolled in introductory psychology courses at a public university in the Great Lakes region of the United States.MethodsStudents viewed trailers early in the semester and attended live lectures months later. Because subgroups of students viewed the same professors, statistical analyses could isolate professor and relationship effects.ResultsEvaluations were influenced strongly by relationship and professor effects, and students' evaluations of live lectures could be forecasted from students' evaluations of teaching trailers. That is, we could forecast the individual students who would respond unusually well to a specific professor (relationship effects). We could also forecast which professors elicited better evaluations in live lectures, on average across students (professor effects). Professors who elicited unusually good evaluations in some students also elicited better memory for lectures in those students.ConclusionsIt appears possible to forecast relationship and professor effects on teaching evaluations by presenting brief teaching trailers to students. Thus, it might be possible to develop online recommender systems to help match students and professors so that unusually effective teaching emerges.
When a strabismus is to be evaluated or corrected purely for cosmetic reasons, the results may differ depending on the value of angle kappa and whether the criterion for good cosmesis is ocular deviation or eye contact.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.