This column is a thorough first-person account of undergoing a form of app-based “brain training” designed to compensate for the loss of age-related eye lens elasticity and the resulting difficulty of reading small print, especially in low light.
The column wisely notes that the training is laborious, the scientific rationale plausible (it’s been successful for so-called “lazy eye”) if sketchy, and the evidence that it enables people to throw away their bifocals skimpy.
That said, the headline and discussion of evidence left us disappointed. It teased readers with “Training Your Brain So You Don’t Need Reading Glasses,” but didn’t provide evidence that people who need reading glasses could train their brains to not need them.
To be sure, glasses and especially bifocals, transitional lenses, or “readers” can be annoying and inconvenient. And nearly everyone will need them as they age. Therefore, new apps that claim to make reading glasses a thing of the past deserve close scrutiny by the news media.
The column provides clear information about the cost of the app tried by the writer. It would have been strengthened by information about the cost of bifocals and, in particular, over-the-counter drugstore “readers.”
The article cites a couple of studies that offer qualified support for benefit of the vision training, but specifics were lacking. For example, it says that through use of this training, “presbyopia lessens.” But how much does it lessen?
The piece does describe one small study as finding that older adults who used the training were able to see “low-contrast images” as well as college-aged participants. Does this mean they could read without glasses? And how long do these improvements last? Is continual training required?
It’s hard to imagine what harms there might be, but it would have been helpful to know something about the drop-out rate that would have done at least a bit of financial damage to the trainees.
The article does a good job putting the scant data into some perspective, and we liked how it explained the iffy scientific rationale for the training in understandable terms.
Comments about bifocal-wearing contributing to accidents are arguably on the line of disease mongering. In the linked study cited to support this point, there was no statistically significant difference in falls between groups that had bifocals or who wore single lens glasses. But, we’ll give the benefit of the doubt.
In-depth reporting was clearly undertaken (and independent research is cited) in the process of putting together this piece. Also, the column discloses conflicts of interest within the industry, which is important.
However, the story didn’t include direct quotes from independent sources. The author states that he consulted with experts in this field as part of his research, and that’s another check in the “plus” column. But on the downside, readers don’t know who those sources are or what expertise they bring to bear. From a reader standpoint, this would be useful information to include and it’s important information to look for. Considering all aspects of the issue, we’ll rate this a borderline satisfactory.
The story raises the alternatives of bifocals and transitional lenses. It would have been stronger if it had mentioned other alternatives to the app-based brain training, such as simple magnifiers, brighter light, and multifocal lenses now available for those who need cataract surgery.
The story notes that various smartphone apps are available that provide this training and that the author picked the only one that had any supporting scientific evidence.
The article duly notes that such training is trendy and girded by relatively new findings about the plasticity of the brain.
Although the Glassesoff app team recently issued a media “kit” and news release, the story’s author has clearly been using the product for months. There is much original reporting and we don’t see any evidence that the story relied excessively on a news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like