Talk:Vision therapy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

weasel words ?

What does "seem to do " mean in this odd sentence from this article 2010-03-02 ?

In addition, can "a theme" in English "seem to do" anything?

quote:

"There is a common theme that critics of vision therapy seem to do by placing vision therapy under the same banner with alternative therapies. "

I have strabismus later aggravated by a fractured orbital and would like to have read a reliable article.

I have never heard of or read before "placing X under the same banner" in a science discussion. One might be said to do so in a trade show or other promotion or perhaps in politics.

Was there no dissenting opinion or minority report to cite? G. Robert Shiplett 22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Look into why "placebo effect" is regarded by some as a contradiction in terms ?

Oops - I mis-read everything !

"Critics do", not "a theme do"

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Help with DVD section

Hi - could any of you Orthoptists out there resolve Talk:Dissociated_Vertical_Deviation#Diagnosis_conflicts_with_Treatment_.21 ?

Ta --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Orthoptics - still in UK

I get the feeling Orthoptics (UK) === Vision Therapy (USA) ? This is en.wikipedia.org, not us.wikipedia.org ... ;) IANAO + IANAVT, but 'Vision Therapist' seems far to generic to be useful ! Compare Head Therapy + Body Therapy ... see what I mean ? --195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversial

I'm trying to make sense of the two edits [1] [2] that removed the information added here [3]. The edits removed the following four references:

• http://www.srmhp.org/archives/vision-therapy.html
• http://aapnews.aappublications.org/cgi/content/citation/31/5/19
• http://blue.regence.com/trgmedpol/alliedHealth/ah19.html
• "Complementary Therapy Assessment: Vision Training for Refractive Errors". American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2004. Retrieved 2010-08-10.

And replaced them with this:

• "Complementary Therapy Assessment: Vision Training for Refractive Errors". American Academy of Ophthalmology. 2004. Retrieved 2008-04-09.

The only edit summary claims the following as an additional reference:

• http://www.visionfactsandfallacies.com/index.html

Looks like this article minimally needs a review of all medical claims and their sources per WP:MEDRS --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I am happy to provide more details regarding the removal of the content added by Suomi Finland. The link to the website (http://www.visionfactsandfallacies.com/) was intended to provide a quick and easy reference. However, yes that source is merely intended for the lay public. To provide you with scientific papers to show that vision therapy is not, as posted by Suomi Finland, controversial or quackery, please refer to the following papers: In Pub Med:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19668097
• http://convergenceinsufficiency.net/uploads/CITT_Arch_2008.pdf
• http://www.convergenceinsufficiency.net/uploads/CI_Tx_of_CI_Current_Perspective_OVS_2009.pdf

As I have reviewed the Wikipedia definition of vision therapy there is some good content and some areas that need further distinction between what are considered to be unproven methods, such as the Bates Method and the proven treatment, office based vision therapy. The standard of care and best practice (proven through research) for binocular, accommodative, oculomotor dysfunction and visual information processing deficits of visual system is office-based vision therapy. The problem with the insertion by Suomi Finland, using the terminology of "controversial" and "quackery" is that it used language that infers that the entire practice of vision therapy is unproven or should be suspect. This did a huge disservice to those patients with vision problems that require vision therapy who locate the Wikipedia information about vision therapy because it could misinform the patient and could possibly result in a person who needs care being discouraged from seeking a doctor prescribed plan for vision therapy.

If there is a need for a reliable source for further clarification, may I suggest the College of Optometrists in Vision Development http://www.covd.org as this organization represents the international body who Board Certifies doctors in vision therapy.

Dan L. Fortenbacher, O.D., FCOVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvision (talk • contribs) 23:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Individual studies are not enough, per WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok if individual NEI studies do not get the job done, how about Clinical Practice Guidelines, written by the American Optometric Association. These are refereed by a large panel of presigous doctors backed by the national association that represents Optometry in the United States. Surely one can not accept the statement of one Suomi Finland and website material of highly questionable content with a claim (inserting "controversial" and "quackery" with vision therapy)that seriously contaminates the body of work and delivery of care that shows efficacy of treatment in an area that is critical to the appropriate patient care of millions around the world? http://www.aoa.org/documents/CPG-18.pdf Dan L. Fortenbacher, O.D., FCOVD —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drvision (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That would fit "medical guidelines and position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies" from WP:MEDRS. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I have simplified the introduction. It introduced too many new topics. The topics are added later in their respective paragraphs. --LSkil10 (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Economic bias of efficacy

As per the quote here:

Although skeptics assert that vision therapists may have a financial bias in proclaiming the efficacy of the practice,[30] proponents and advocates of vision therapy claim that other eye professionals have a similar bias in rejecting its claims.[31] In either case, most insurance companies do not cover vision therapy services, partly because of the lack of support for vision therapy in evidence-based literature.

The reference given [31] actually refers to a discussion on Orthoptic Vision Therapy, not Behavioural Vision Therapy. Therefore, I have deleted this line until proponents & advocates show evidence pertaining to this.

Edits by Djp823

I've reverted several extensive and undiscussed edits by Djp823 (a new and possibly inexperience editor) on 1st May 2012. The quality of the sources is not good enough and the language borders on editorialising. I would urge this user to discuss the problematic sections here before making any more sweeping changes. Famousdog (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Current Definitions in Clinical Practice

I am new to editing, forgive me.

Under Orthoptic vision therapy it states "It is commonly practiced by optometrists and behavioral optometrists - however, more specialized problems are co-managed between orthoptists and ophthalmologists.[3][6]" The reference labeled 3 is a broken link and the reference labeled 6 references collaboration between optometrists and orthoptists, not ophthalmologists. The opinion that more specialized problems are co-managed by ophthalmologists is incorrect without supporting references like much of the rest of this article. This should be removed.

Agree. Reference 3 is indeed broken, and I don't even see any mention of this in reference 6. Lou Sander (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Under Behavioral Optometry it states "For example, Behavioral Optometrists hold that the sensitivity of a professional athlete's peripheral vision on the playing field may have enhanced responsiveness to fast moving objects with vision therapy, beyond the normal realm general improvement with practicing their sport.[citation needed]" This should be removed as it references the possibility, without a reference, of a single statement amongst a profession. For definitions of what a profession professes, go to the source such as http://www.babo.co.uk/.

Agree.. Furthermore, the "citation needed" tag has been there since 2009, with no citation provided. Lou Sander (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The sentence that follows should be removed as it is irrelevant. The paragraph continues with "Furthermore, absent of any visual pathology they view perceptual-motor deficiencies as being in the sphere of either speech therapy, occupational therapy or physical therapy..[citation needed]" This is incorrect as visual perception including visual motor integration is part of the recommended areas of testing and treatment by American Optometric Association (page 21 of the following PDF) http://aoa.org/documents/CPG-20.pdf. These are OPINIONS and should not be included in a medical wiki page.

Agree. These are questionable medical claims where a citation has been requested for over a month, with no response. It may be a little premature to delete them, but it may be OK to do it right now. Lou Sander (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Under perception motor therapy there is no reference and should be removed. There is a wealth of literature supporting the role of the optometrist in hemispatial neglect including a textbook edited by two optometrists. http://www.amazon.com/Vision-Rehabilitation-Multidisciplinary-Patient-Following/dp/1439836558.

Comment. I added a "citation needed" tag. Give people some time to respond. If they don't, delete the claim. Lou Sander (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

We'll address other sections soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djp823 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article should be in Question

See sections above — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djp823 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment on neutrality tag

I moved the above comment from the top of the article to the bottom, where it is now in proper chronological order.

This article has many issues. There needs to be a straightforward explanation of why the article's neutrality is questioned, and of what non-neutral point of view is alleged to be present.

It appears that Djp823 is a new editor who does not yet have the requisite editing skills to be making major changes to the article. It would be good if his/her proposed changes were discussed here before being made in the article. I hope that he or she will create a user page so we know something about him or her, and so we will be better able to help. Lou Sander (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

As stated above I am new to editing, thank you Lou. I have asked questions about certain definitions used in the section labeled "Current Definitions in Clinical Practice". I'll wait for you to let me know when I can delete the sections that don't have resources cited or cite references that do not substantiate the claim. Djp823 (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Got it! As I understand what you are saying, the problem with the article isn't so much that somebody is pushing a particular point of view, but that the claims they are making are poorly substantiated. I tagged the article to that effect.

Regarding how long to wait before making changes... If I question something on an article's talk page, I usually give people a week or two to respond. If there are responses, I deal with them. If there are NOT responses after that period of time, I go ahead and change the article. Since you are new to editing, it might be good, when you are ready to make your changes (even right now), to announce very specifically on the talk page what you intend to do. Give people a few days or so to respond, then go ahead and do it. What's important here, IMHO, is to let people know what you intend to do, and give them a reasonable amount of time to respond to it.

I've been editing Wikipedia for many years, and I've collected some useful tips on my talk page, under "Lou Sander's Useful Stuff". I think you'd find some of it to be useful. Hope all of this is helpful. Lou Sander (talk) 22:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It helps very much (I just learned to add : to replies :) There are many facts that are in dispute on this page and many opinions that are stated as facts. I am learning Wiki editing etiquette and I appreciate your guidance. Your talk page is pretty impressive! Djp823 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewritten lead

I've completely rewritten the lead. The old one had an obsolete reference and wasn't very descriptive of the subject. IMHO this one is very much better, and the rest of the article needs to be similarly reworked. Lou Sander (talk) 03:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rewritten Historical Development section

I've rewritten this section to make it more coherent. I removed some unreferenced claims, and added well-referenced material about the history of Vision Therapy. I also removed all mention of the controversy about vision therapy and learning disorders, since it was unreferenced and didn't seem to belong in a history section. The controversy is real, however, and I hope somebody will write an encyclopedic and well-referenced section about it. Lou Sander (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV

I've been working a lot on this article, which IMHO is not a very good one. The point of view that vision therapy is not endorsed, not effective, quackery, etc. is advanced by repeated mentions in different sections. Little or no balancing material is presented. The efficacy of VT has certainly been challenged by serious people and organizations. A good article would put the information about this into an encyclopedic, well-referenced section that also included responses to these challenges. See more in WP:NPOV. Lou Sander (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Vision training be merged into this page. The two pages already acknowledge that the terms are synonyms. This page much more complete than Vision therapy, which has multiple problems and barely qualifies as a stub. — Molly-in-md (talk) 18:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Molly have been talking to Anthonyhcole about editing the wiki page for Behavioural Optometry and have agreed with Brendan Barrett that I will write something conclusive which he will review before publication. Feel free to discuss this with Anthonyhcole as independent assessors and by all means with myself Peace Peaceful07 (talk) 05:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed challenged material

I removed some material that had been challenged since 2009 and March, 2012. No responses to the challenges had been made. IMHO this is a small step in improving the article. Lou Sander (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3