[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
December 15, 1934


JAMA. 1934;103(24):1856. doi:10.1001/jama.1934.02750500038013

The view that examination of the eyes by a dispensing optician or optometrist is inadequate and usually uneconomical has been often expressed. Recently Harman1 in England has employed the statistical method in attempting to determine the truth or falsity of this opinion. A number of ophthalmic practitioners, working in different parts of England, who were accustomed to seeing patients through the National Ophthalmic Treatment Board, were asked to keep records of the patients examined by them. To enable the records to be compared, cards were issued to these physicians, outlining the classification to be followed and the manner of entering the returns.

The report is based on 10,085 such cases recorded by forty-seven ophthalmic practitioners. Sixty-four per cent of the 10,000 cases showed errors of refraction only. Twenty-nine per cent showed errors of refraction plus one or more "other eye conditions." Nearly 6 per cent showed no errors of

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview