 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 20062 refractions = 2 measurements. Huh?
I just received two refractions; the second to confirm the first. To my surprise, the second picked up astigmatism, where the first didn't; the basic correction was very close. My question is, what difference in real world terms would I see by choosing one over the other? Is my astigmatism too small to be concerned about and too small to put in the prescription? I'll post my refractions below. Thanks for your help. mick SPH CYL AXIS #1 OD -1.50 -2.00 177 OS -1.50 -1.75 020 #2 OD -1.50 - - - - - - OS -1.25 - - - - - - ================================================================= > I just received two refractions; the second to confirm the first. To my > surprise, the second picked up astigmatism, where the first didn't; the > basic correction was very close. Incompetence is not an altogether distant possibility. You could get some more refractions, delete the outliers, and average the rest. You could download an astigmatism test chart. That could eliminate the worst of the two possibilities you have before at this time. -- Dicky there is quite a big difference between those refractions. if you have the amount of astigmatism that refraction #1 indicates, and you did not include it in your spectacle or contact lens correction, you vision would be somewhat blurry. this magnitude of error is not common. perhaps prescription #2 was not written out correctly and accidentally excluded the astigmatism measurement. > I just received two refractions; the second to confirm the first. To my > surprise, the second picked up astigmatism, where the first didn't; the > basic correction was very close. My question is, what difference in > real world terms would I see by choosing one over the other? Is my > astigmatism too small to be concerned about and too small to put in the > prescription? I'll post my refractions below. Thanks for your help. If both of those rx's are correct as written, one is clearly wrong. That much astigmatism does not just randomly appear and disappear. Verify that someone did not merely forget to include the astig in the first rx. LB, O.D. Dear mick, Calculation of spherical equivalent. SPH CYL AXIS #1 OD -1.50 -2.00 177 The spherical equivalent is to take 1/2 the cyl and add it to the sph. Thus the OD would be -1.5 - 2/2, or -2.5 diopters, for a 1 diopter error (approximagely.) Clearly a significant error. Go get another check. The astigmatism part was probably omitted from the second prescription. I am an engineer, not an optometrist. Best, Otis OS -1.50 -1.75 020 #2 OD -1.50 - - - - - - OS -1.25 - - - - - - WTF????? What crap are you talking about Cletis? Mick, a -2.00 and -1.75 cyl is a pretty reasonable cyl in each eye. Gibven the sperical component is the same for each refraction, one is clearly wrong, probably the second (an omission when writing the script out?). Ring the OD for clarification. dr grant why did you bother to post? your contribution adds no value whatsoever. you like to read your own prose don't you otis. remember everyone, as otis himself says, he is AN ENGINEER, NOT AN OPTOMETRIST. don't take advise from him unless of course you are interested in building a bridge. Dera PClar, It is of value to calculate the spherical equivalent to find out exactly how much these two prescriptions are "different". The difference is about 1 diopter -- which exceeds the "random" error of most OD measurements. Best, Otis The spherical equivalent is of no value Cletis you moron. The absence or presence of cyl is the only issue here. Seeing you are NOT on OD, why are you telling us what is of importance? dr grant it is of NO value to calculate the spherical equivalent. it is clear that the prescriptions are different PERIOD. and how would you know what is an acceptable or reasonable level of error during a refraction-- you don't know how to perform one. are you just proud of yourself because you know how to calculate spherical equivalent? are you trying to somehow demonstrate your knowledge of simple optics so as to impress people like simpleton nancy/ace? you add no value to any discussion on this newsgroup. stick to your alternative medicine yahoo website where scientific proof is unimportant. > why did you bother to post? your contribution adds no > value whatsoever. you like to read your own prose don't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ENGINEER, NOT AN OPTOMETRIST. don't take advise from him > unless of course you are interested in building a bridge. Do you have any reference for that? Please cite showing that Otis is an engineer. -Quick actually i have no reference. it is only otis that claims he is an engineer. you are right-- perhaps that is so much hot air like everything else he claims. hmm: otis, trash collector otis, pedophile otis, psychopath |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.