Talk:Glaucoma/Archive 1

Archive 1

Closure Glaucoma and its point of closure

Posted on Dec 5, 2011. Someone who knows this issue needs to edit it or contribute to this issue AS SOON AS POSSIBLE because the closure glaucome weighs heavily in this writing. Therefore, more explanation of closure glaucome is needed. For example, just a very simple issue, i.e., the point of closure needs clear description and clarification. The author says "the final roll and root of the iris against the cornea resulting in the inability of the aqueous fluid to flow from the posterior to the anterior chamber and then out of the trebecular network." If this is true, should it be not "from the posterior to the anterior chamber" but from "central anterior chamber" to "peripheral anterior chamber"? This should be answered. Just provide some hints here, for instance, where is exactly the point of closure?: 1) between iris/pupil and lens so that aqueous humour cannot get to anterior chamber from posterior chamber, 2) between cornea and iris before meshwork so that aqueous humour in anterior chamber cannot get into meshwork space, 3) between cornea and meshwork (iris-base/root) so that aqueous humour in anterior chamber cannot get into meshwork, 4) between iris-base/root and meshwork so that aqueous humour in anterior chamber cannot get into meshwork, 5) or combination of some of the above 4?

My experience with Angle Closure Glaucoma was just as a patient. All I really know is that it was dealt with quickly and seemingly simply. For me, an iridotomy was preformed. The doctor put a special lens against the eyeball and fired a laser through it drilling some holes through the iris in each eye. The whole procedure took about ten minutes, actually 45 if you include the prep and anesthetic drops then strapping my head to a frame. The holes are nearly microscopic and transverse the iris all the way through to the inside. No cutting of the eyeball itself was required. The laser was focused through the cornea and targeted on the iris directly. The pressure went down 10 points in a couple of days. The fluid then uses the new holes as an additional pathway to circulate throughout the eyeball. In my case the angle closure was due to Neurofibromatosis whch formed Lisch nodules. I also went a long time between eye exams and ignored some “warning signs.” Nonetheless I got scolded for not having my eyes checked sooner, but now it is fixed, the doctor should never be a problem again. Beyond that I really don’t know much of the structural detail of what’s involved. 199.73.1.1 (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Aqueous humour is produced within the ciliary body (behind the iris). The fluid travels through the pupil and drains via the trabecular meshwork. In angle closure, the iris is pressed against the trabecular meshwork. The iris is often bowed forward (bombe) disrupting the flow elsewhere. An iridotomy equalises the pressure gradiant accross the iris. I will try to ammend this in the article if it is unclear.Nernst (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: Risk factors and diagnosis

In this section, the author(s) mention that Blacks (along with diabetics) have a higher risk of developing open-angle glaucoma, while Asians are more likely to develop angle-closure glaucoma. While I have no doubt that these passages may be statistically true, the presence of these assertions without any causal explanation is problematic.

People who are ill-informed about human anatomy will take this to mean that certain races will get one form of glaucoma more than others; in other words, they will think that Black people are only at risk for open-angle glaucoma, which is in no way true. Since race doesn't exist within human biology, it cannot be true. So it must be environmental factors that cause these differences. This should have been explained in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinko1977 (talk • contribs)

I disagree with nearly every point.

• For the scope of this article, asserting that Blacks are more likely to develop POAG and that Asians are more likely to develop ACG is completely accurate. A section detailing other risk factors and what is currently known regarding the pathogenesis of glaucoma would not contradict that assertion.
• I fail to see how those without a background in anatomy would conclude that Blacks are only at risk for POAG from that assertion; for example, one does not infer that only teenage drivers get in traffic accidents from the assertion that teenage drivers are more likely to get in traffic accidents.
• Regarding "race doesn't exist within human biology" - It sure does when you're in the clinic assessing risk factors and deciding whether or not to put a patient on Xalatan for what could be the rest of his or her life.
• I fail to see how one would infer that environmental factors are the reason that Blacks are more likely to develop POAG and that Asians are more likely to develop ACG.

AED 06:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

i must agree with this last post. race is most certainly important and directly related to certain diseases, and glaucoma is one of them. i must infer the the first two posters in this section are not ophthalmologists or they would know this. and glaucoma is by far not the only example of this; diabetes is more prevalent in blacks, even after you account for known environmental factors. 24.28.169.144 13:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The following was removed: "A 2004 study published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health suggests that heavy computer users may be at a higher risk for the disease. [1]" The study states that heavy computer users with refractive error may be at a higher risk for glaucoma. The relationship to computer use is correlative, not causal. The stronger link to glaucoma appears to be myopia.AED 06:47, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What are these risk factors in proportion to. Black and Asians are more likely compared to what? Is it all humans or against Caucasians.... Just some clarification in the article would be nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.176.70 (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Pigmentary dispersion

One congenital form of glaucoma is where the iris is mis-shaped (posterior bowing of the iris) and causes pigment to disperse into the eye. The pigmentary dispersion can then cause blockages in Schlemm's canal, which raises the IOP (in my case, I had IOPs in excess of 40 mm Hg). Having this occur to me, and having been one of the early patients to be diagnosed as such (by Dr. Joel Riesman of the Boston University Eye Associates), the course of treatment was to have laser surgery (I believe laser peripheral iridectomy) to burn a hole in the iris of each eye. The fluid then corrected the shape of the iris due to the IOP which caused the dispersion to stop. It is unknown if the pigment will eventually drain out of the eye or not over time.

Some references:

• http://www.revoptom.com/handbook/sect4c.htm
• http://www.glaucoma.org/learn/pigment_dispers.html
• http://www.krukenbergs-spindle.co.uk/Pigment_Dispersion_Syndrome.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormerider (talk • contribs)

Comment

I'm a very lowly medical researcher. I haven't been involved in glaucoma research for years - but I think the article would benefit from mention of the role of ischaemic damage in glaucoma, and how this ties in with defects in the systemic circulation such as Reynauds and migraine.Notreallydavid 23:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed Block of Text

I removed the block of text below, because the spelling and grammar makes me suspect the source. It would be good information to have, though, so if someone wants to put it back with some citations, that would be nifty. --Mdwyer 05:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

WHAT CAUSES GLAUCOMA? clear liquid called aqueous humor circulates inside the front portion of the eye. To maintain a healthy level of pressure within the eye, a small amount of this fluid is produced constantly while an equal amount lfows out of the eye through a misroscopic drainage system. (This liquid is not part of the tears on the outer surface of the eye.)

Because the eye is a closed structure, if the drainage area for the aqueous humor-called the drainage angle-is blocked, the excess fluid cannot flow out of the eye. Fluid pressure within the eye increase, pushing against the optic nerve and causing damage.

Malignant Glaucoma

I saw this word in my doctors folder Asesstment: Malignant Glaucoma 05 what does this mean? I asked her and she said it was cili- something —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JanieL612 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

Ask your doctor to WRITE DOWN the medical term because no one else should be asked to take the responsibility of guessing what you might have heard. Here is a list of synonyms and related keywords: malignant glaucoma, ciliary block glaucoma, aqueous misdirection syndrome, ciliovitreolenticular block, ciliolenticular glaucoma, ciliolenticular block glaucoma, ciliovitreal block glaucoma, direct lens block angle-closure glaucoma, blindness, vision loss - from http://www.emedicine.com/oph/topic134.htm Cuddlyable3 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Nicknamed? By whom?

Glaucoma has been nicknamed "the sneak thief of sight".

Could there be some sort of attestation to the source of this nickname? I've not particularly heard of it, and I suppose it's possible that it's a widely used nickname, and I just haven't heard of it, but it would still be nice to see see some sort of sourcing within the statement itself as to who nicknamed it. --Puellanivis 18:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added a source for this. Ljeyrich (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

GON

This abbreviation appears in the Risk factors and diagnosis section without previous explanation. Could this be added? Ta muchly.Mmoneypenny 21:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

GON - definition

Glaucomatous optic neuropathy - basically, an optic nerve that appears to have been damaged by glaucoma. For example, increased cupping, notching of the rim, nasalization or bayonetting of the blood vessels. Eyedoc 00:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

AR malformations

The page on Axenfeld Rieger syndrom is lacking on links to it. I don't quite know how to write that part, but I understand that it is well establised that glaucoma has a high correlation with AR spectral disorder. Bunty.Gill 01:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Promising "nano" delivery device

“The nanoparticle can safely get past the blood-brain barrier making it an effective non-toxic tool for drug delivery,” said Sudipta Seal... [1] Brian Pearson 04:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Leading cause of blindness in the world???

I was researching glaucoma and cataracts on wiki and i found that in both descriptions it is noted that each is the leading cause for blindness in the world —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.84.120.77 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

May also want to look into the numbers for diabetic ocular neuropathy134.39.229.125 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Leading cause of blindness in the world - possible answer

Most likely what it meant was that Cataracts were the most common reversible cause of vision loss, and glaucoma was the most common irreversible cause of vision loss worldwide. In the united states cataracts are not a problem since they are surgically corrected (most commonly performed surgical procedure nationwide). Eyedoc 00:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Diagnosis...instruments

Have added more instruments and cleaned up the diagnosis portion. Will add some context to the instruments and cite my sources soon. Jeremy Zabeleta 15:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Might we want to add the simple, first-line test using a pen light?134.39.229.125 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

3rd leading cause of blindness worldwide, not 2nd

They own reference given in this article states

"Cataract causes 41.8% of global blindness (15,829,000 persons), operable/curable cataract being the probable cause of the vast majority. • Trachoma (15.5%) in developing countries and the various types of glaucoma worldwide (13.5% of blindness) are two conditions that cause a major proportion of blindness"

Global Data on Blindness, Thylefors B, Négrel A-D, Pararajasegaram R, Dadzie K Y. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 1995; 73(1): 115–121

So it is the 3rd after Cataract and Trachoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.216.35 (talk) 10:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

COMMENT ON THIS POINT This comment is factually correct about the reference cited. However, this reference is now out of date, and has now been superceeded by..... Global data on visual impairment in the year 2002 Resnikoff,S.; Pascolini,D.; Etya'ale,D.; Kocur,I.; Pararajasegaram,P.; Pokharel,G.P.; Mariotti,S.P. Bulletin of the World Health Organization 2004;82:844-851. Proportions of total blindness: (1) 47.8% Cataract, (2) 12.3% Glaucoma, (3) 8.7% Age-related macular degeneration (4) 5.1% Corneal opacities (incl. Trachoma) Pauljfoster (talk) 23:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Slight vandalism?

The first few paragraphs of this article all refer to glaucoma as being a "fake" eye disease. Obviously this is not true, and someone should fix it.

137.150.105.53 (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) M. Omstead

Someone fixed it. --Mdwyer (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Refences

I fixed the reference section to actually show the references. I also changed the first reference to a more recent paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WeOwnTheNight (talk • contribs) 16:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Incoherent paragraph

This paragraph is incoherent:

"The main risk factor of glaucoma demonstrated in animal models is recanalization of Hyaloid Canal. Hyaloid Canal and the tunica vascula lentis atrophy in the third semester of gestation. Occasionally, its system may persist after birth. In some people with some anatomical problem of the eye, intraocular pressure can be rise higher than normal. This condition as Pascal's Rule can make reopenning of hyaloid canal and distiributes the pressure, impact directly to Optic nerve head as a "Locus Minoris". It might causes Glaucomatous Optic Neuropathy. [2]"

148.87.1.167 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC) The contributor who wrote this is apparently not a native English speaker. What I am more concerned and suspicious about is the reference purported to be from an Indonesian ophthalmology journal which has no PubMed listing nor Web link in spite of its modern date. It would be very helpful if another more accessible reference could be supplied so a writer of English could clarify the concepts for us all and corroborate the statements. Bcebul (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In my searchings of the literature I cannot find any modern accessible reports suggesting a posterior segment mechanism of ocular hypertension. In a literature search I have not been able to corroborate the suggestion of pressure transmitted somehow through a reopened hyaloid canal to the optic nerve head. The accepted modern theory of ocular hypertension is an anterior segment aqueous humour mechanism. The anterior segment pressure is transmitted according to Pascal's Law through the whole eye. Whether there is a persistent hyaloid canal or hyaloid artery seems superfluous to this. Though, angle closure glaucoma can be associated with congenital anomalies of the hyaloid such as persistent hyperplastic primary vitreous. [see references in article] Bcebul (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Pathophysiology

Two quick suggestions. Glaucoma is a group of eye diseases characterised by degeneration of the optic nerve, with many causes, as stated in the introduction. However, no reference is made to this in the "Pathophysiology" section - I suggest a re-write of this section, based around this key point. Second, I suggest that the other hypotheses should be referenced as follows: "...anatomic structure[4], eye development[5]..." rather than all references being at the end of the sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregnz (talk • contribs) 23:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am currently trying to find out if Glaucoma can effect only one eye or if both eyes are normally involved. thanx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.11.33 (talk) 17:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Iritis to Glaucoma

Can Iritis turn into Glaucoma? I've had Iritis for 10 weeks. — [Unsigned comment added by 71.80.50.196 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 24 April 2010.]

This talkpage is just for discussing how to improve the article about Glaucoma, so you are unlikely to get a satisfactory response here. You can try the references desk, specifically the science section. The reference desk is for asking general knowledge questions, and someone there might know about glaucoma and iritis. You shouldn't rely on Wikipedia (or any other website) for medical advice though. if you're concerned, ask your doctor.--BelovedFreak 22:27, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is correct word

Humour - Humor, before I can edit whole article to Humour CFBancroft (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The appropriate article is at aqueous humour, but that doesn't affect this article because aqueous humor is a redirect from the American spelling. Since the subject is not specific to any country, this article should retain whichever version of English was originally used - see WP:ENGVAR. I can't tell which from a glance - there are a number of "ize" endings, but these are valid in both Commonwealth and American English (whereas "ise" endings tend not to be used in American English). The article should be consistent in its spelling throughout. I suggest you wait a week, and if no one else replies, then change to whichever spelling you prefer.-gadfium 04:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Clarification needed

In more the one place in the article the terms "open angle" and "angle closure" are used without explanation. Is the "angle" a structure within the eye? If so, it doesn't appear to be indicated on any of the diagrams. The discussion seems to make some sense if I assume that the "angle" refers to a space between the iris and either the lens or the inside of the cornea, in which case "acute angle closure" means what? Is the angle an acute one, in the geometric sense (as opposed to obtuse), or does it mean that the illness is acute, as opposed to chronic? I suspect the latter, but it's very confusing. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The angle between the iris and the cornea. Will clarify in the article.Nernst (talk) 17:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It would also help to clarify whether "acute angle closure glaucoma" is using "acute" in the medical sense ("acute angle-closure-glaucoma") or or the geometric sense ("acute-angle closure glaucoma"). And why do "open angle" and "angle closure" have differing word order? Perhaps those are terms of the art, but "wide angle" vs "narrow angle" would be both clearer to the lay person (and mathematician), and "acute narrow-angle glaucoma" would clearly be using "acute" in the medical sense. Martin Kealey (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"It is also the leading cause of blindness among African Americans"

First of all, since the same sentence identifies glaucoma as the leading cause of blindness period, what's the point of pointing out a non-unique demographic? Second of all, the citation makes mention of African-Americans, but it is a cursory mention. Certainly, one would not use a blurb concerning rollercoasters in a physics textbook as a citation for the color scheme of a particularly famous ride. The web page is only concerned with the possible therapeutic effects of marijuana reducing intraocular pressure and thus aid in treating glaucoma.--68.225.194.245 (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't read your post until just now, but I've just re-introduced that fact about it being the number 1 cause of blindness in African Americans, but with a different citation. I think it's a much better source, though, than the previous one. Let me know if you object to the new citation. The article (and its references) now indicates that cataracts are the number one cause of blindness worldwide. Rytyho usa (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Canaloplasty

The Glaucoma#Canaloplasty section states that "Long-term results are not available.[42][43]" This statement is contradicted by Glaucoma_surgery#Canaloplasty and Eye_surgery#Canaloplasty which both state that "Long-term results are available."

As a confused patient, I am very anxiously awaiting clarification! (Please excuse the hyperbole.)— John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 15:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: pathophysiology - confusing at times

I feel the article has to be clearer regarding the pathophysiology of the glaucomas; not just in the Pathophysiology section, but throughout the entire article. Giving one example:

The article introduction mentions that all the "subtypes of glaucoma can all be considered to be a type of optic neuropathy". But then the rest of the article focuses on the fact that the main finding in glaucoma is increased intra-ocular pressure. There is no mention of any relationship, identified or otherwise, that connects increased IOP with neural damage. Going on to the Pathophysiology section, this focuses on the mechanisms through which open- and closed-angle glaucoma cause increased IOP, but again with little information as to how this causes visual loss. For example, do both forms cause vision loss in the same way?

Nonagonal Spider (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

"The same view with advanced vision loss from glaucoma" (Illustration)

Hello, I believe that the illustration with the subscript: The same view with advanced vision loss from glaucoma, is incorrect. The brain will not accept any dark spots in the visual field, and will therefore fill in the dark spots with assumed things from the context. So the glaucoma patient won't see the reality, but a recontructed image of the reality, far more dangerous than the situation from the illustration. Kind regards 81.68.65.127 (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I raised a similar objection several years ago and it was dismissed at the time. I can't find the discussion on a talk page - I thought it was on this one, though it may have been another ophthalmology related page).

The reason for the dismissal was that the diagram is representative not factual. I countered with the argument that a patient with an eye problem would be misled if they saw the image and said to themselves "That's not what I see, I guess I don't have glaucoma." One of these days I will create a proper representation of the phenomena, though, since it will be based on personal experience, I suspect it will be rejected on "own research" grounds.

Sometimes I wonder if medical professionals actually believe that this is what the patient sees. It is basically a mapping of a visual field test graph onto a photograph. This sort of illustration is extremely common in posters and handbills at hospitals and medical facilities. Poor illustrations are a form of bad medical practice IMNSHO.

99.245.248.91 (talk) 19:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Bilateral?

Presentation of Glaucoma isn't very clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.231.117 (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Too much jargon in first sentence?

As a non MD I find the first sentence of the article to be a mouth-full of technical language. So, since I am not an MD can someone explain what it means.

"Glaucoma is a term describing a group of ocular disorders with multi-factorial etiology united by a clinically characteristic intraocular pressure-associated optic neuropathy."

Does this translate to

"Glaucoma is a group of eye disorders of varying causes that are characterized by nerve damage in the eye caused by high internal pressure."?

If these sentences mean about the same, then I think the simpler version is preferable.--David Österberg (talk) 04:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Disease of the brain

Should mention something about glaucoma being mainly a disease of the brain. See here: [2]. Knowing what it is should be integral to the article. --207.235.126.210 (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be a bad idea imho, as it would mislead people reading the article. If you read past the headline of the reference you supplied, you will see that it says that "eye’s retina and optic nerve are a part of the brain" and glaucoma is like other age-related, brain-degenerative syndromes like Alzheimer's, Lou Gehrig's disease, the only difference being that the " 'specific area of the brain' affected is the eye and optic nerve". Whether true or not, most people don't think of the eye as part of the brain. If you did make the claim in the article that it is "a disease of the brain" I think you'd have to be very careful to make it clear that you only meant that in the sense that "the eye is part of the brain". But there's a more important reason not to add it.

Your source is basically an opinion piece by a medical person speculating about the future direction and findings of eye research. The article never claims that any such degeneration of the optic nerve like what happens in Alzheimer's is known to exist currently, what it does say is: "the optic nerve continues to be a major focus for research..." -- i.e., the author is speculating and apparently thinks or hopes that future advances may point to avenues of glaucoma treatment having to do with degeneration of the optic nerve similar to what happens with Alzehimer's. That's an exciting prospect, however no such link of brain degeneration to optic nerve damage currently exists. The author fully admits that the only known cause is IOP and current treatments aim to address that. Modifying the WP article to say "glaucoma is mainly a disease of the brain" would be highly misleading, and is not supported by known facts by reliable sources. Mathglot (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So, I talked to a glaucoma specialist, who in part agrees with you, including the part about the optic nerve, and even the eye, being part of the brain. (He called it something like the "optical forward outpost of the brain" after pointing out what a huge portion of the brain is occupied by the visual cortex, a fact which I was already familiar with.) It's they eye's being thought of as part of the brain that is news to me, but at least you have some anecdotal support there. So have at it--go and find some reliable sources that put that into writing, especially ones that are talking about stuff that is known, and not just speculation about directions of future research, and their possible outcomes, and by all means edit the article accordingly. I'd just take care to explain in some detail about this, as if it is, in fact, general opinion among opthtalmologists that the eye is part of the brain, that's going to take some careful explanation to the rest of us who think of the brain as being inside. So, go for it. Mathglot (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Layperson here

I'm sure this whole page is very informative for doctors, but some of us mere mortals don't understand phrases like:

"The only signs are [...] and optic nerve changes (increased cup-to-disc ratio on fundoscopic examination)."

What on earth is increased cup-to-disc ratio on fundoscopic examination? This is in the symptoms section of the article, where I would think an average person might look for information on glaucoma. How are they supposed to understand that?

Then there's the opening sentence of this entire article:

"Glaucoma is a term describing a group of ocular disorders with multifactorial etiology united by a clinically characteristic intraocular pressure-associated optic neuropathy."

Please compare this with the introduction to the opener for Copenhagen interpretation:

"The Copenhagen interpretation is one of the earliest and most commonly taught interpretations of quantum mechanics."

I'm not a third year student majoring in Quantum Mechanics, and I understood the above.

I can appreciate that the authors of this article would like to include as much detailed information as possible; however, this article could really use a paragraph or two written for the average person who is trying to understand what glaucoma is, and if they might have symptoms. I am used to Wikipedia articles containing information for the general public and the well-versed alike; this article seems to be geared towards the latter, with no regard to the former.

NotAMedStudent (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add my agreement with this section. Please write the introduction in plain English that a mathematician like me can understand.

BudgieJane (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Room for improvement

There should be hyperlinks to the "iris and cornea" pages so that readers don't have to Google them to understand the article.

The article refers to "open-angle" and "closed-angle" (or "angle closure"), yet the picture is of "Acute angle closure" which is not referred to in the article.

Disorganization due to open-angle and closed-angle

After working on this article for awhile I realized that many of the confusing aspects come from the fact that open-angle glaucoma and closed-angle glaucoma are essentially two independent diseases they are treated as one in many aspects of this article. The symptoms, diagnostics, pathophysiology, risk factors, treatment, etc is completely different between these two entities. I would suggest that either the article be split into two different articles, or maybe a more reasonable solution would be that each section would have an open-angle and closed-angle subsection in each relevant section.Ljeyrich (talk) 05:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is confusing, but that is partly due to the fact that glaucoma is a term describing a constellation of different disorders arising from different origins, but which have a common deleterious effect, namely, damage to the optic nerve resulting in loss of vision. It's just a fact that medicine and ophthalmologists in particular use the term "glaucoma", and in particular, there are glaucoma specialists, but not, to my knowledge, "open angle" specialists, or "closed angle specialists". We should follow the usage of experts, and retain "glaucoma" as a single article (unless it gets too big) as that is what experts and reliable sources in the field do.

I agree, it is confusing. One of the reasons I find the article is confusing is its relatively poor organization, and I've tried to begin remedy that in part by adding a new section "Types" (maybe should be entitled "Types of glaucoma" instead?). It attempts to briefly describe open, closed, narrow-angle, and some of the other variants such as NTG, PEX, pigmentary, juvenile, and uveitic glaucoma. Note that this material somewhat overlaps the material in the existing Diagnosis section, but the latter is much longer, has a different focus, and while naming some of the different types of glaucoma doesn't actually say what they are, so you're still left with the confusion you talked about. The new Types section was intended pretty much to deal with the whole "umbrella term" problem. Note that there are already separate articles on several of the sub-varieties, and I hope that the Types section makes this clearer, and makes it easier to access them. By all means go in and improve this section; it's already on my to-do list to add more references (much of it summarizes material distributed elsewhere in the article or in the sub-articles, so it's mostly a matter of finding those existing references, and adding the short, named-ref variety here).

What do you think, and would you like to collaborate on improving this section, and/or the article in general? I already have in mind a History & etymology section (the history is fascinating, and goes back to ancient Greece). Mathglot (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The section on epidemiology is were incidence should be discussed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Call me an idiot but. why is no one talking about rubella in relation to glaucoma? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.221.111 (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Angle, what angle?

Hi. As a layman, I gleaned through the article and despites numerous to "acute angle", "open angle" and "closed angle", nowhwere in the article is there any information on what is meant by angle or where comes in, in the names of these condictions. Could someone please include this information? Thanks. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Incidence of Glaucoma - possible typo?

The fourth paragraph starts with, "About 6 to 67 million people have glaucoma globally.[2][4]" 6 to 67 million people appears as an awfully large range. Is it possible a decimal is missing somewhere?

Ranges like this are not uncommon in conditions that have variable definitions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glaucoma. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20070512122154/http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cjo/cjo42-03.html to http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/cjo/cjo42-03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130326052012/http://www.glaucomaassociates.com/info-nerve-fiber.html to http://www.glaucomaassociates.com/info-nerve-fiber.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Lancet seminar

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31469-1 JFW | T@lk 12:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Diet section should discuss vitamin C research

In this study http://www.orthomolecular.org/library/jom/1995/pdf/1995-v10n0304-p165.pdf 30 people had clinically significant reductions in pressure due to Vitamin C supplementation. Why is this not included anywhere in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.250.228.192 (talk) 11:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)