Jan 2006 Optometry PAL article

[Les Moss]

Has anyone seen the new Sheedy article "Progressive addition lenses —measurements and ratings" in the Jan 2006 Optometry magazine?

A list of lenses tested and summary of results would be helpful to consumers.

[For-Life]

Has anyone seen the new Sheedy article "Progressive addition lenses —measurements and ratings" in the Jan 2006 Optometry magazine?

A list of lenses tested and summary of results would be helpful to consumers.

Well do not forget too that what is the difference between lenses and what is the value difference.

[drk]

Well, I just read it.

The main difference this time around is that Dr. Sheedy used a dozen samples per design (same Rx) to get a better average of lens performance. He also has some better statistical analysis that shows the top tier and bottom tier per characteristic analyzed, as well as grouping together lens designs that are not significantly different than another. He also has calculated a mean value per category, so you can see if a given design is above or below average (which is not super-meaningful, since he chose the group of lenses, and it's not "industry average", just "study average".)

So, essentially, instead of the top lens per category, you get top level, middle level, low level performers per category. A little more fair and easier to conceptualize.

Often times the low performers in one category are the high performers in another category, showing the trade-offs that are needed in lens design.

It seems as though there are clear winners, again, and there are average designs. The "dogs" are really more lenses that were designed "away" from the characteristic being measured.

There are no "shakeups" in the rankings compared to the first study. Pretty much the same results, at first glance.

Quick hits:
I did note, because of Optiboard's Darryl, how the Sola One looked (not HD), and it looks a lot like the Panamic on the rankings, maybe better in one regard, maybe worse in another. It seems to me that it's a relatively low astigmatism design, as well. Sola/AO/Zeiss have some good products on the rankings. The Solamax is a truly unique lens. Panamic is very unique. Shamir is a big winner, again. Younger's Image and Vision Ease's Outlook do suprisingly well.
Definity with it's dual add, Physio, and the individualized lenses like Ipseo, Autograph, Individual, SolaOneHD are not included in this study.

A simple concept has been refreshed in my mind by looking at a study like this: there are "harder" designs with better zones of clear vision, and there are "softer" designs with less astigmatism with less optical performance (and everything in between), but it may be useful to have design of each to use. Otherwise, I think the design differences are smaller than similarities, assuming you're comparing an apple to an apple (not a short corridor to a full length, or a soft to a hard design).

[Happylady]

If I don't get this magazine, where can I read this study?

[Les Moss]

Its available here:

http://www.optometryjaoa.com/article...02927/abstract

But, you need to register and pay $30 to get it.

[drk]

It will eventually be posted here:
http://optometry.osu.edu/research/COOR/

You can read the occupational lens review, now.

[Les Moss]

It will eventually be posted here:
http://optometry.osu.edu/research/COOR/

You can read the occupational lens review, now.

It showed up today - 3/3/06.

[Les Moss]

Here is the direct link:


http://optometry.osu.edu/research/CO...AOA_paper2.pdf