looking for 8 opticians to participate on a study on taking measurements.

I would like to conduct an independent study comparing manual measuring vs digital measuring. The study will consist of measuring eyeglasses 5 times, taking manual measurements and then taking digital measurements using the Optikampad on the same frames. We prefer having people with both manual and digital measuring experience. We can also do this remotely for those that would like to participate and live outside the tristate area.

This is an independent study to see the averages of manual measuring vs manual measuring and digital measuring vs digital measuring and then comparing the two. The study will take place in mid August in New Jersey. Anyone interested or would like to get more details, please e-mail me at opticianjw@msn.com or call 732-278-2622.

Who is funding your study?
How will you use the results?
Who are you?
What is the purpose of your study?

I am doing the study myself and there is little to no funding necessary. It is an informal study but I have contacted a few Opticians to monitor for accuracy. I have contacted both Barry Santini and Vicky Masliah whom both are well respected and renown in our area.
I an an optician and own my own office for 26 years and use the optikampad daily with great success.
I have been speaking on digital dispensing for almost 10 years using the Optikam and optikampad. I have also tested most of the digital dispensing systems sold in the US.
In some of my lectures last year for quantum, numerous opticians questioned the accuracy and I was only able to speak on my experiences so I felt it would be useful to do a study that I can present for future lectures.
I hope this answered your questions but feel free to contact me if you would like to participate or have any further questions.

What is digital dispensing?

Beware of what happened to ODs: they all got juiced about buying hand-held, smart-phone-based autorefractors, and were used as beta testers. Then the company set up kiosks for self-refracting. (Or something like that. https://www.smartvisionlabs.com/enterprise/ )

So, as you participate with "opti-kam-pad" and develop the technology for "digital dispensing", you may find the good old boys at "opti-kam-pad" are looking for greener pa$tures for their high-tech p.d. stick (that your average optician is too savvy to purchase).

Are you getting paid by the company to do this study?

Realize that this ultimately is going to go to "tele-optometry" and "tele-opticianry". Have fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drk

Who is funding your study?
How will you use the results?
Who are you?
What is the purpose of your study?

---

Always a ray of sunshine. :tongue:

I am not getting paid for the study.
As far as your concern regarding hand held auto refractors as an example of digital measuring, this is how I feel.

I am sure some optometrist saw auto refractors as a threat when they became available and some might have not purchased them but most optometrists use them today which have made them more efficient and proficient. They use it as a tool to help them determine in conjuction with the subjective part of the exam. I feel the same way when I take digital measurements and patients appreciate us having this device. They tell me all the time how impressed they are when I explain why we take digital measurements.

I do not fear or feel threatened by digital measuring nor can a prevent technology from existing anyway. I can tell you that it has had a huge positive impact on my business and as an independent Optician it has enabled me to stay ahead of my competition.
This technology does not replace opticians but expands our ability to take the additional measurements that the new lenses require and does it in a quicker and more precise way.
I have found some opticians want opticianry to stay the same or go back to the good old days but I am a progressive thinker and want move forward, I will not accept the status quo mind set.

Patients would be impressed if you shined a penlight with a purple cap on it and told them it was checking their pupil size in dim light. I.e., who cares about dogs and ponies?

If "newer is better" and you're "staying ahead" and "progressive" and "not beholden to the good old days", let me ask you: do you fit everyone in blue-light protecting lenses? Do you use the "Eyezen" or other "digital non-fatigue" lenses on everyone? Do you use only the newest PAL designs? Of course you do not.

Do you fit CR39 or D-segs? Of course you do.

The point? You use your brain! You decide, as a professional, what is truly useful--REGARDLESS of whether it was invented in the year 1900 or 2000.

In fact, the most important thing you have to offer are your values, your compassion, your 26 years of experience, and your brainpower, none of which a computer can be programmed to have.

Digital measurements are well and good, but they must not be a replacement for human beings. Certainly not robot-opticians or robot-optometrists. That's a step backwards, not forwards.

I like studies.

Good luck on yours, Ojw. I'd be interested in the finished product when you're done.

I'm pretty much a Luddite when it comes to these things, at least so far. The devices can be impressive. (Guilty of being hypnotized by shining lights.) But I've seen some 5-figure machines sitting in the corner collecting dust because 'something is wrong with it.'

The studies I'd like to see:
Customer (ECP) satisfaction statistics & feedback on these devices.
Longevity of Working performance durations, costs.
Comparative remake rates of lenses whose measurements were by machine versus by hand (in the same facility.)
Scatter chart of those deviations, spreads, and standard deviations among multiple facilities.

Assuming there is a big cluster of facilities who have no significant spread, or whose spread is small enough to make the expense of device 'X' wasteful for that particular facility, we have a sample pool of opticians to gauge educational and professional development costs of what it means to train a competent dispenser. And then let's pay attention to their average retention at these facilities who employ good measurement takers.

So even if I can be 'impressed' with the gizmos at the demo, I'm still unimpressed. It'll take some serious studies to start really impressing me. But I can't be a Luddite forever, and when these things actually progress enough to help provide good health care, I'm happy to use them.

So far, I have no way to disagree with Dr K. Deus Ex Machina makes for some really foolish "techs" whose patients had the misfortune of putting their faith in them.

But there is no forward without some backwards now and then--and maybe this is the study that will help make better gizmos. Study on, Jersey!

It seems this is somewhat akin to the old 20/20 isn't always 20/HAPPY adage. Digital measurements don't replace even basic but SOLID training, and I have yet to see ANY machine capable of looking at a patient, asking them what they do, how they do it, how does it affect their posture, their head and neck positioning, and how they use their eyes in their own skull.

Much like blue light lenses, it seems that the continued push for more "accurate" measuring devices are a solution looking for a problem...

Is there some unexplained massive number of PD measurements that are not able to provide accurate measurements, that make patients comfortable and happy that occurred overnight?

All this automation, in the long run, to replace people.

Then nobody knows jack squat.

(Then the Artificial Intelligence Apocalypse that the twisted up half-human-half-robot physicist from the now-xenophobic UK keeps warning us about!)

No lie: I was talking to an experienced, brilliant cataract surgeon who bemoaned the fact that the newer docs are so technology-dependent that they can't think for themselves. If the machines failed they'd be screwed.

I think there is a time and place for high end tech. But I have serious reservations at this point that the fancy PD machines are the end all / be all...

Of course they're not. What's more, the:
a. POW
b. digitally surfaced
c. individualized

thing that birthed all this hyper-measurement is, frankly, at high risk for being over-rated.

First as I stated before, this technology does not replace an optician but helps them be more proficient at what they do.

I could tell be some of these responses that regardless of how this study came out, the close minded negativity would still not be accepting to the possibility that this technology could be a better option for today and the future.

I remember telling a colleague years ago about why he should get a pattern maker and then years later to get a patternless edger and him telling me how much better and faster he was. No matter what I said he argued his point until one day he had to get a new edger and only then did he realize how wrong he was.

I am not hear to argue or change anyones opinion but was requesting some volunteers for the study. For those of you that are interested, please contact me.

Wow... who knew trying to conduct a simple 'tech vs. manual' study could become so heated! Bet you weren't expecting that one! Well I wish you the best of luck. I've always been one to like to mix up my method. I figure whatever works in the long run is fine (when it comes to measuring.) We have a lot of different styles because opticians aren't printed out. We are a mash of people who found a passion in this field and we all have different methods. In my office we have 3+ methods of showing how to take seg heights. It is up to the individual to find what works best for them.

Personally, I like manual segs and digital PDs. It just happened that way. It's what I have luck with. We have tried the super fancy Hoya do-hickey that attaches to the frame and measures for you. Great for PDs but I changed the seg every time. I do like having more comfortable and precise methods for vertex and panto and such.

I can also say that all of my opthalmic pairs are anti-fatigue and (mostly) digitally processed. Some even have blue blockers! Oh no, I've bought in? How about, I want what best for my eyes and for my patients eyes. Let's not deny people progress because it 'ain't broke.'

I would like to thank those of you that private messaged me that are willing to participate with the study.

I also would like to ask those of you that replied to the post if you would be willing to just do the manual measuring portion
of the study. This could be done at your own office at your own convenience by taking manual measurements on a staff member. It would take no longer then 30 minutes of your time and would be appreciated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Opticianjw

I would like to thank those of you that private messaged me that are willing to participate with the study.

I also would like to ask those of you that replied to the post if you would be willing to just do the manual measuring portion
of the study. This could be done at your own office at your own convenience by taking manual measurements on a staff member. It would take no longer then 30 minutes of your time and would be appreciated.

---

Your welcome... Im really looking forward to this and will do it on the iPad- Smart Mirror from ACEP France.

Benny

I lost track of this thread but would be happy to assist in the manual measuring! Let me know the details when the time comes :smile: