Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23662956›Full record

ArticleOphthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists)2013

Dynamics of active emmetropisation in young chicks--influence of sign and magnitude of imposed defocus.

David S Hammond, Josh Wallman, Christine F Wildsoet

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ophthalmic & physiological optics : the journal of the British College of Ophthalmic Opticians (Optometrists), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. IMI - Report on Experimental Models of Emmetropization and Myopia.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2019
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David S HammondNational Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Clinical Eye Research, Discipline of Optometry and Vision Science, Flinders Medical Centre and Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia. david.hammond@flinders.edu.au
Josh Wallman
Christine F Wildsoet

Funding

Mechanisms underlying emmetropization and local eye growth regulationR01EY012392 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI WILDSOET, CHRISTINE FRANCES · 1999 to 2018
$4.6M
NEI NIH HHS EY-R01-2392NEI NIH HHS R01 EY012392
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeYoung eyes compensate for the defocus imposed by spectacle lenses by changing their rate of elongation and their choroidal thickness, bringing their refractive status back to the pre-lens condition. We asked whether the initial rate of change either in the ocular components or in refraction is a function of the power of the lenses worn, a result that would be consistent with the existence of a proportional controller mechanism.

methodsTwo separate studies were conducted; both tracked changes in refractive errors and ocular dimensions. Study A: To study the effects of lens power and sign, young chicks were tracked for 4 days after they were fitted with positive (+5, +10 or +15 D) or negative (-5, -10, -15 D) lenses over one eye. In another experiment, biometric changes to plano, +1, +2 and +3 D lenses were tracked over a 24 h treatment period. Study B: Normal emmetropisation was tracked from hatching to 6 days of age and then a defocusing lens, either +6 D or -7 D, was fitted over one eye and additional biometric data collected after 48 h.

resultsIn study A, animals treated with positive lenses (+5, +10 or +15 D) showed statistical similar initial choroid responses, with a mean thickening 24 μm h(-1) over the first 5 h. Likewise, with the low power positive lenses, a statistically similar magnitude of choroidal thickening was observed across groups (+1 D: 46.0 ± 7.8 μm h(-1); +2 D: 53.5 ± 9.9 μm h(-1); +3 D 53.3 ± 24.1 μm h(-1)) in the first hour of lens wear compared to that of a plano control group. These similar rates of change in choroidal thickness indicate that the signalling response is binary in nature and not influenced by the magnitude of the myopic defocus. Treatments with -5, -10 and -15 D lenses induced statistically similar amounts of choroidal thinning, averaging -70 ± 15 μm after 5 h and -96 ± 45 μm after 24 h. Similar rates in inner axial length changes were also seen with these lens treatments until compensation was reached, once again indicating that the signalling response is not influenced by the magnitude of hyperopic defocus. In study B, after 48 h of +6 D lens treatment, the average refractive error and choroidal changes were found to be larger in magnitude than expected if perfect compensation had taken place, with a + 2.4 D overshoot in refractive compensation.

conclusionTaken together, our results with both weak and higher power positive lenses suggest that eye growth is guided more by the sign than by the magnitude of the defocus, and our results for higher power negative lenses support a similar conclusion. These behaviour patterns and the overshoot seen in Study B are more consistent with the behaviour of a bang-bang controller than a proportional controller.

Indexed as

AnimalsChickensChoroidContact LensesDisease Models, AnimalEmmetropiaEyeRefraction, OcularRefractive Errors

Identifiers

PMID23662956
PMCPMC3972214

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.