This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

AVERY deH. PRANGEN, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1939;22(6):1083-1096.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The status of myopia in ophthalmic practice is still uncertain and debatable. No unanimity of opinion exists as to its nature and treatment. In this article I have attempted to review and coordinate the opinions of various writers on the subject and to include some ideas on the problem as seen from my own experience.

A review of the literature seems to show certain rather definite periods of contrasting trends of thought on the subject of myopia. There seems to have occurred a definite evolution from the older mechanistic theory of myopia (elongated globe) toward the more recent biologic variant point of view. It appears difficult for ophthalmologists to discard some of the mechanistic theories. The theories and teachings of the earlier writers taint the therapeutics of myopia even at the present time. Mackenzie¹ (1833), Donders² (1864), Landolt³ (1886), and Beer,⁴ who was the first professor . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
ROCHESTER, MINN.

From the Section of Ophthalmology, the Mayo Clinic.

Footnotes
Compiled from a series of lectures given in the Instructional Courses of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology at Chicago, 1934, Washington, D. C., 1938, and also at Cleveland, Rochester, N. Y., Minneapolis and Topeka, Kan.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?