Preliminary report: Prescription of prism-glasses by the Measurement and Correction Method of H.-J. Haase or by conventional orthoptic examination: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study

In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, cross-over study in the Netherlands, the effectiveness of (prism-)glasses prescribed by the Measurement and Correction Method of H.-J. Haase (MKH) was compared to that of glasses prescribed by conventional orthoptic examination. Nine pairs of MKH-optometrists and orthoptists recruited patients who primarily presented with asthenopia, and each prescribed the patient (prism-)glasses. A questionnaire for asthenopia was developed that rated headache and tired eyes as 0-7 days per week and none-light-medium-severe, respectively. Light sensitivity, problems with focusing, near-work problems and burning eyes were each rated as: never-occasionally-often-always. A patient was eligible if he scored 'medium', 'often' or '5 days a week' twice; or 'medium' (etc.) once and 'light' (etc.) twice. Controls, in contrast to the patients, typically answered 'none' or 'never' to half of the complaints, but 37% of them would have passed the admission criteria. Among other criteria were: 18 to 40 years of age, horizontal angle < 4°, vertical < 1.7°, acuity ≥ 0.8, stereopsis threshold disparity <120″. Seventy-two patients fulfilled all criteria and returned sufficient questionnaires. They wore the first glasses for six weeks, were without glasses for two weeks, and then wore the second glasses for six weeks. At the start, halfway and at the end of each 6-week period, questionnaires were filled out; 97% were returned. Only 19 of the orthoptists' glasses contained prisms (14 horizontal, 5 vertical; horizontal average of all glasses 0.49 PD, vertical 0.05 PD). Five of the orthoptists' glasses were plano. All MKH glasses contained prisms, 53 of 72 both horizontal and vertical, 18 only horizontal and one only vertical (horizontal average of all glasses 2.83 PD, vertical 0.79 PD). The starting levels of complaints were high and both glasses improved complaints dramatically. The starting levels were lower, but not significantly, in the second 6-week period and improvement was less outspoken. Because of these differences, the two periods had to be evaluated separately. The primary outcome of the study was defined as the difference between the effect of the MKH glasses and that of the orthoptists' glasses in the first and second 6-week periods. For problems with focusing, in the first 6-week period, and for tired eyes, in the second 6-week period, the difference exceeded the difference that had been defined as clinically significant (one day per week less headache or half the distance light-medium or half the distance occasionally-often), but it did not reach statistical significance. The statistical power was approximately 0.7 for demonstrating this clinically significant difference. Statistical significance was not reached in multivariate repeated measure ANOVA either. Forty-four patients preferred to keep the MKH glasses, 25 the orthoptists' glasses, including one plano. It is striking that 25% of the patients did not prefer the glasses that, according to the questionnaire, improved their complaints the most. A year after the study, the questionnaire was sent again to all patients: The levels of complaints after a year were similar to those at the end of the second 6-week period, whether they had preferred the MKH or the orthoptists' glasses, and were similar to the levels in controls. The most conspicuous finding was that both glasses improved the complaints dramatically. Apart from the prisms, other reasons could be: spherical and cylindrical correction, improved wearing comfort of the frame, placebo effect, Hawthorne effect and regression to the mean.

• View at Publisher
• View at Pubmed
• View at Scopus