At my most recent eye exam, I paid an extra $40 or so to have some kind of digital retinal imaging done (no dilation required) and the amount of detail the doctor could see was phenomenal to my eye (no pun intended).
They were perhaps making more money on it, but seemed to push it as medically superior to the dilation and manual inspection process.
I'm surprised, I thought the digital imaging was the standard now. The eye doctor I've been going to for several years now only does the new method and doesn't even offer dilation afaik.
Insurance doesn't cover it, so some doctors don't bother with it. I was caught by surprise when I tried out my wife's ophthalmologist. Dilation only, no option for a digital scan, my choices were get dilated or get out. I'm not going back there.
Here in AUS, essentially every single optometrist requires digital imaging.
Oh, and it’s subsidised by the government.You don’t pay a single cent for a prescription.
Bonus: If you have private optical health insurance it will likely cover two pairs of prescription glasses per year. Not too bad a deal if you ask me!
Optomap is the (commercial?) name for this. A previous Silicon Valley ophthalmologist I went to swore by it and I saw the value, given a family history of macular degeneration, but out here no one has the very expensive machine.
I don't even care if it makes them more profit than drops, I'm MUCH more likely to use the digital system rather than drops, so the value is there for me.
>For instance, pharmacologically-induced mydriasis causes sensitivity to light (photophobia) and blurred vision, which may make it difficult to read, work and drive.
Based on structure (but not the Ames test), phentolamine has some genotoxic metabolites. I wonder why they chose that alpha agonist and not a different one (of which there are many).
> In both pivotal studies, a statistically significantly greater percentage of subjects experienced their study eyes returning to normal at all time points measured from 60 minutes through 24 hours in the Ryzumvi group compared with placebo.
Thanks, FDA, industry standards, and general statistics education. This means almost nothing.
How much does it help? What fraction of people are helped? Can one still see comfortably in dim light after administration of dilating drops followed by this? Does it also reverse cycloplegia?
They mostly only studied pupil diameter - there is one visual acuity test measurement (at normal lighting conditions) performed at 6 hours that maybe shows improvement.
Readit News
They were perhaps making more money on it, but seemed to push it as medically superior to the dilation and manual inspection process.
The article content mentions driving though.
Thanks, FDA, industry standards, and general statistics education. This means almost nothing.
How much does it help? What fraction of people are helped? Can one still see comfortably in dim light after administration of dilating drops followed by this? Does it also reverse cycloplegia?
They mostly only studied pupil diameter - there is one visual acuity test measurement (at normal lighting conditions) performed at 6 hours that maybe shows improvement.
The accommodation results are indeed unimpressive.