Talk:Behavioral optometry

Discussion of single study

In 1944-1945 the Wilmer Eye Institute of Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore undertook a study of the use of behavioral optometry in the treatment of myopia. The training was undertaken by A. M. Skeffington and his associates, who traveled to Baltimore for the purpose, but who used a clinic outside the hospital, and were carefully kept apart from the staff in the Wilmer Institute who assessed their progress. The 103 candidates were school students and young adults with uncomplicated myopia. Independent examination before and after training was undertaken using Snellen charts, and use of a retinoscope after introduction of a cycloplegic agent. The examining physicians "were impressed by a psychologic improvement in a number of patients. Some patients while exhibiting no material change in their visual acuity, were nevertheless convinced that they saw better and that they used their eyes with greater satisfaction to themselves." The objective results were as follows. Of the 103 subjects:

• 30 showed some improvement on all measures
• 31 showed overall improvement, but not on all measures
• 32 showed no overall change
• 10 showed deterioration of vision

The report's author concludes "With the possible exception of educating some patients to interpret blurred retinal images more carefully and of convincing some others that they could see better even though there was no actual improvement, this study indicates that the visual training used on these patients was of no value for the treatment of myopia."

A review of the data undertaken in 1991 by two behavioural optometrists and published in the Journal of Behavioural Optometry, concludes that there were statistically significant positive changes in visual acuity due to the exercises and that the original conclusion that myopia reduction vision training is ineffective is unfounded. Visual neuro-rehabilitation for congenital/developmental concerns as well as visual concerns related to trauma and pathology are well founded.

References

The above content is problematic for a bunch of reasons. Little things like the embedded external link in the last sentence, which we don't do here. But larger, is this is WP:UNDUE weight on a single, very old trial. Per WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS we don't do this for medical treatments (and the whole first paragraph is sourced from a very old WP:PRIMARY source - this is notproperly sourced). This ~might~ be interesting in a history section, if the goal here is to tell the story. But this is not the way we talk about efficacy of interventions in WP. Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree. This is completely undue and gives us an article with a skewed POV. Alexbrn (talk) 18:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The research section should be a discussion of modern research based on high quality secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We already have an article with a skewed POV. That POV is that B.O. is fringe quackery, and anything that suggests otherwise doesn't belong in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We just reflect the best available evidence. Bring a high quality secondary source and we can discuss how to paraphrase it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

So if high quality secondary sources are required throughout, the use of a ranting blog (Novella) is clearly unacceptable. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mods, I have completed my work on both Wikipedia pages and the Jennings and Barrett papers. It amounts to 50 pages of A4 of peer reviewed scientific journal quality writing and almost all of the comments Jennings and Barrett and others make questioning behavioral optometry and vision training are disproved. I posted to Lou Sanders about this the other day and to Famous Dog about this at his request earlier today. Where do you wish to go from here? I suggest a negotiation point by point. My American based colleagues are quite keen to get involved so they could talk to you if suits as this has taken up much of my time. I would be quite embarrassed as a moderator to be citing the St Louis Beacon for example when there is good quality scientific literature out there to look at. I have other things to do today so will come back and look at this later, if only to see if somebody has responded. Considering the degree of attitude I received from moderators initially in 2012 and more recently in 2015 (I note much of this has been deleted and just as well) I would hope that both sides can be more amenable in futurePeaceful07 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Your work - that would be WP:Original research, no? We don't do that. With regard to your colleagues, please be aware of WP:MEAT. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

My work has been to read through all the references you have cited and find their conclusions to be misleading and spurious. I have found that Wikipedia moderators have either deliberately or accidentally misquoted literature as have academics. I suggest that if you are going to post on this material that you actually read your references or is that you do not do that. What exactly do you do Alex?Peaceful07 (talk) 15:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

What does Alex do? While he is a long term medical encyclopedia writer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Peaceful07, As I state here, I have not received any email reply from you. Please try again. Famous_dog (c) 08:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Official position of the IOO

The Institute of Optometry has this to say about BO. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Much of what they say seems reasonable and even-handed. Are they a reliable secondary source? Lou Sander (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent productive edit reverted. Needs discussion.

I'm hoping that WP:CYCLE can be of help here. An anonymous editor recently made what seems to me to have been an informed and articulate edit to this article, complete with numerous citations from what appear to be reliable sources. It was reverted within minutes, with an edit summary of "fringe/pov". It seems to me that this edit is neither promoting a fringe topic as mainstream, nor advancing a point of view. IMHO, the reverting editor needs to give us more explanation of his action. The article before the reversion is HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 21:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What specifically did you think was okay? I saw poor/off-topic source and fringe advocacy (as the edit put, in article space: "Our main purpose is to prove that Barrett’s paper was flawed at the time or publication and has not been validated by evidence since" !) Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alex. I did that edit, and I would suggest that if you are going to base an opinion about a subject on one academic paper, when that paper is proven to be flawed, the article must be edited? I refute your accusation of "fringe advocacy". The evidence for Behavioural Optometry is overwhelming and solid, and indeed Barrett himself has noted that the intent of his paper is misrepresented. I am a bit new to this, but what evidence would you require to change this article? Ideology Consulting (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I would have removed it as well. It's a major rewrite of the article, with a reversal in point of view, clear advertising problems, all likely written against a conflict of interest. --Ronz (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly what advertising problems do you see? I am not sure at all what you mean? There needs to be a reversal in the point of view because it is simply incorrect in science and fact. How is this "fringe advocacy"? It is the mainstream view. There is a plethora of highly credible medical research to support behavioural optometry and Brendan Barrett's article was misrepresented then, and is outdated now. I suggest the eds have an obvious bias. If not, allow me to provide the evidence you claim does not exist. 101.167.24.203 (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you a new contributor to this page or are you editing after a WP:LOGOUT ? Alexbrn (talk) 14:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah sorry, getting used to this system.Loomis Ideology (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Behavioural Optometry is taught in programs at State Uni of New York, Indiana State Uni, Melbourne Uni, North-West Uni SA, UC Berkeley, Uni of New South Wales, Uni of Gothenburg, Uni of Bristol, Uni of South Florida, Uni of Waterloo Ontario amongst many others.Loomis Ideology (talk) 14:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

So what? Homeopathy and Reiki are taught all over the place too. We need high-quality sources and we are obliged to follow them. Barrett's paper is a high-quality source in Wikipedia's terms. I know some BO practitioners don't like it but that's not our problem. Alexbrn (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

I provided a short list of 60 quality academic papers, most of which refute Barrett's paper when I edited recently and they were deleted. It seems that the facts are not so much the issue here. I happily concede that there are skeptics when it comes to this subject, and I pride myself on that position on may issues, but I have looked at this subject in depth and the evidence is strong. Barrett is wrong and this article is also fundamentally flawed. I would like to suggest that we work together to provide a more balanced article.101.167.24.203 (talk) 00:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

We go by what good secondary sources (WP:MEDRS) say, not your WP:Original research. This is basic policy. Alexbrn (talk) 05:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Barrett is a secondary source but not a good one. Here is a good one that I believe qualifies as a secondary study Loomis Ideology (talk) 06:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Here is another reference that I believe is a secondary study Loomis Ideology (talk) 07:01, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

References

• The first would be PMID 12498561. From 2002. And you're complaining Barrett 2009 is out of date? Per WP:MEDDATE we should be using more recent sources. Barrett specifically references this paper and so his paper supersedes it.
• The second is PMID 3307438. From 1987. 'Nuff said. Alexbrn (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok I don't think you want to change this article, and will trot out any excuse for reasons I can't imagine to avoid it. There is always an excuse not to, even though its obvious it is not correct and is hopelessly biased. I think your comments and actions in this talk speak for themselves. No respect Alex.Loomis Ideology (talk) 11:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

We follow the WP:PAGs. At the moment the settled verdict on BO as published appears in the Barrett paper. If there are better sources, produce them (I've looked and drawn a blank) - but Wikipedia is obliged to reflect accepted knowledge on this topic as published in high-quality sources. Alexbrn (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I will let the readers judge who is right and who is wrong. Barretts discussion is a poor example of an academic paper compared to others I have shown you. Its is full of missed references, misrepresented positions, logical errors and personal comments and judgements. But even then it supports behavioural optometry more than it criticises. Barretts paper is not accepted as the definitive word on the subject despite your assertion. Barrett is both out of date and inaccurate, and the Wikipedia article as it stands draws selectively to make a point. I do not know what your motivation is but it is not the truth.Loomis Ideology (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I will let the readers judge... I'm sorry, but statements like this demonstrate a total lack of understanding of our policies and guidelines. Such statements are also typical from editors with a financial conflict of interest, as is [1]. Regarding your conflict of interest: Disclose what you want. --Ronz (talk) 16:08, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased and Outdated

This article is clearly not representative of the facts about Behavioural Optometry. There is a huge volume of evidence that could be provided here that is scientific, credible and valid. The Barrett paper quoted is an old meta review which has been shown to be flawed. It was inaccurate at publication, but its basic message is misrepresented and time has proven this to be even more so.

The attache file is an example of the problem and also provides substantial evidence (not all) to show that behavioural Optometry is science based.

I suggest that revision is needed urgently. Alexbrn I would be pleased to discuss with you.

Ideology Consulting (talk) 07:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS and WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The OP was blocked. Bon courage (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand the point you are making, but the article as it stands is clearly not correct or representative of the facts. How then do we redress this? 14:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loomis Ideology (talk • contribs)

Find MEDRS sources. --Ronz (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

This was done and the edit was deleted.101.167.24.203 (talk) 00:38, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree that the sources did not meet MEDRS in the manner needed. --Ronz (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Biased and Outdated (2)

Dear All, Happy New Year. I wondered how all of this was going? My American colleagues are interested in interacting with yourselves so I thought that I would make contact again. Warmest regards Peaceful07 (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note that Behavioral optometry got merged into Vision therapy. This article is just a WP:REDIRECT. To discuss article content, please go to Talk:Vision therapy. Bon courage (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage: Given that the most recent comment before this section was from eight years ago, I think it may be prudent to redirect this talk page as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)