Talk:Astigmatism

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine: Ophthalmology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Ophthalmology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Astigmatism. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

I recently went to have my eyes checked and was told that I have astigmatism, albeit "just a little." He came to his conclusion based on a series of tests with white superimposed on green and red backgrounds. I observed the letters through a phoropter. I was asked which letters appeared clearer: the ones superimposed on the green or red background? This does not appear to be a reasonable test for astigmatism. If I am not mistaken, shouldn't an astigmatism chart be used if one was to diagnose astigmatism? Anyone have any ideas? mezzaninelounge 14:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't it have more to do with the eye doc looking inside your eye? JayKeaton 08:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its when you cant see things very cleary and it makes it hard ansd you should go to an eye doctor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.224.195 (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The government page on astigmatism http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001015.htm states that "Glasses or hard contact lenses will correct astigmatism. Soft contact lenses do not work as well." I have a 180 degree axis in one eye and a 170 degree axis in the other eye and am able to use softmed torics which are soft lenses. The doctor told me that those would be better than buying hard lenses. I have no problems wearing them or seeing with them and my astigmatism is horrible. I'm wondering too if there is any genetic basis for having astigmatism. My mother also has a huge axis on both eyes. --Starladustangel 05:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true. I have astigmatism and I'm using soft lenses to correct it. 195.72.132.1 09:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So? Just because you are doing it does not mean it works. Did you even read the message or did you just skim through it? Jackass2009 (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is false. Contacts are better than glasses in correcting astigmatism. But after all laser sergery is perfect here, it removes what is AT FAULT here, not like with miopia. Valery Zapolodov (talk) 01:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this is bhatia here, my uncle who is in varanasi INDIA, was opearated for cataract 6 months back,has suddenly being diagonised having cjd, is this possible.can you guide us in this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.182.35.9 (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

By "cjd" do you mean Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease? Because that has nothing to do with cataracts, eyes, or astigmatism. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not WebMD, and the discussion page does not exist for you to ask questions about the validity of medical diagnoses. --75.58.54.17 21:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cornea, instead of being shaped like a sphere, is ellipsoidal (like an egg)

Spheres are ellipsoids. This statement does not meaningfully draw a distinction between a healthy cornea and an astigmatic cornea. What actually differentiates spheres and eggs is that eggs are mostly prolate and spheres are neither prolate nor oblate. It is also wrong to say that "ellipsoidal" means "like an egg". An egg is a very special case of an ellipsoid, just as a sphere is.

Quite simply, an astigmatic cornea resembles a prolate hemispheroid whereas a healthy cornea resembles a spherical hemispheroid. An egg would actually be both of those two joined together. --75.58.54.17 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to get a sense of how astigmatism of various degrees affects ones vision. How is the subjective experience or the objective abilities of someone with a given level of astigmatism compare to myopia. Am I correct in assuming that myopia is a "bigger" problem? --RedHouse18 19:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHouse18 (talk • contribs)

I'm removing the "Notable individuals with astigmatism" section. First of all, astigmatism is extremely common (just read the article to see). It's like having a section on "Notable individuals with dandruff". Second, none of them are cited. Greg Salter (talk) 07:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the future impact of astigmatism for a patient?

I have -12.5 and -11.5 power glass and in one eye it has cylindrical power. Now I am wearing a spectacle with that power. My question is what would be the future effect of this problem? Am I going to be blind in future days or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.248.157.91 (talk) 06:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "In With-the-rule astigmatism, the eye sees vertical lines more sharply than horizontal lines. Against-the-rule astigmatism reverses the situation. " Is this correct? It seems that it depends on the spherical refraction/acommodation what axis is seen sharper. Depending on the spherical focal distance, in either case (with or against the rule) one or the other orientation could be seen sharp. If the total spherical equivalent matches the object distance, neither axis will be seen sharp. Can anyone confirm? 193.196.193.20 (talk) 14:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Alpins method of astigmatism analysis is a new entry, currently listed as an orphan. It forms the basis for ANSI standards related to planning/analysis of astigmatism correction in refractive surgery (a new section that will soon be added). It includes a link to Astigmatism (eye); can I insert a link in Astigmatism (eye) back to the Alpins method (not sure of the protocol here, as I'm new to this). Thanks. Kcroes (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"focus a point object"  ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.183.185.133 (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm from Russian part of Wiki)) For some reason I needed an illustration for my article, but the original picture had a very bad resolution. I've redrawed it. You can use it if you want. Best wishes)) Russian page https://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%90%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%BC%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BC_%28%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B0%29&stable=0 Illustrations

File:Мира астигматизм.png

File:Мира четкая.png Гуменюк И.С. (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article is techincal without explaining what it's talkaing about. Unclear, like trying to learn Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.2.150 (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I totally, totally agree with you. A loose noose (talk) 06:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is actually not technical enough. Like wow, is it 2021 or what? Valery Zapolodov (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know what a cylinder is, but this article starts using the term like it is a specialized optical concept (which it is) and gives no explanation of it. There is no corresponding Wikipedia article on "Cylinder" or "Cylinder (visual)" that means the kind of cylindrical correction for a contact lens. This article on astigmatism doesn't make this any more clear (as it were). A loose noose (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least some attempt at a definition at Eyeglass prescription#Cylinder component, although it's still not super consistent in my opinion. I've changed the entry you added to the DAB page and I may just create a redirect that this page can use too. Edit: I've created it. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Cylinder" is a reference to a cylindrical lens. If you combine a spherical and a cylindrical component in the same surface of one lens, you get a toric lens.--Srleffler (talk) 01:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the "Need for clarity..." topic below. A specific example should be given. WMSwiki (talk) 14:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fishbourne I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but we have to remember who we are writing for, and the problem with that edit is that whilst technically correct, it introduces three new terms, "point image" "object point" and "rotational asymmetry" which may be difficult to comprehend for most readers. MOSLEAD provides the guidance:

"It is even more important here than in the rest of the article that the text be accessible. Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions"

So it is not just about adding a reference to support your revision, it is about making your version accessible. As it stands the article is now vulnerable to being tagged "too technical" Regards CV9933 (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tweaked it and added links for the difficult terms. I agree with Fishbourne that the previous description was not good, nor was the previous cited source.--Srleffler (talk) 11:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Srleffler IMHO the original lede to this article was better in that it mentioned astigmatism in terms of ophthalmology. It's a curious thing to me that consensus above is the opposite of how the article should be titled to reflect that - (Astigmatism (Eye)). CV9933 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the current lede is any less specific to ophthalmology than the previous lede. The problem with the previous lede was that the definition given there was wrong.--Srleffler (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A great service to humanity would be performed by the kind person who would spell out what the heck is the dang "Rule" that astigmatism can be "With" or "Against". Gwideman (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it occurs in early life and is left untreated, it can result in amblyopia. 2603:6000:D70A:BC00:4D24:B9E8:BC86:DE09 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Srleffler (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct "can" to "may" in statement, "it occurs in early life and is left untreated, it can result in amblyopia". Correct "is" to if". 2603:6000:D70A:BC00:4D24:B9E8:BC86:DE09 (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Is" was correct. The full sentence is "If it occurs in early life and is left untreated, it may result in amblyopia."--Srleffler (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that, to the patient, for the right eye the prescription is 1.5 diopters at 15 degrees clockwise and 0.75 diopters at 105 degrees clockwise. I would know what to tell a lens grinder but I would not know how this is specified by an optician or by an ophthalmologist. Please clarify this and give an example for the reader. I am asking this question because I am about to have my cataracts removed and want to know what my prescription will be if I have a Basic lens put in my astigmatic eye or if I have a near lens put in. Because this article is so imprecise, I would rate this as poor. The problem likely is that the authors are so well-versed in the area that they don't realize that others need their conventions specified. For the record, I am a physicist and occasionally have taught introductory optics. WMSwiki (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CorwinBM (article contribs). Peer reviewers: JudeAVM.

— Assignment last updated by Clauf20 (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The picture in the lede uses letters that are mainly made up of continuous curves, other than "i", and that letter has no horizontal straight section with parallel edges (the bottom edge of the serif at the base of the letter is the only straight horizontal edge in the image, and it has no parallel horizontal upper edge). The end result is that the effects of vertical focus look far more extreme than the effects of horizontal focus, because there is only one edge that is continuously horizontal and therefore in focus, whereas with horizontal focus there are many straight, parallel vertical edges in focus. If letters must be used, then the letter "e" should be one of them, but a clearer demonstration would be obtained using, outlined (not solid), an equilateral triangle, a square, and a circle. At least I try (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]