Talk:Contact lens

Some information on [percieved] health risks of regular contact-lens wear?

How about removing the "Contact lens review" link at the bottom? It appears to be a blatant attempt at advertising. --Joeljkp 16:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Kaszeta 17:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Health risks?

I uploaded these on commons this morning, might be more interesting licence then te one currently used. Henna 09:04, 14 August 2005 (UTC) Image:Lens.jpg Image:Lens2.jpg[reply]

How about removing the 'atop the iris' part? Could be confusing and is redundant as we've already stated it is placed 'on the cornea'.

I agree. Change made. Edwardian 00:16, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How about a paragraph on how they actually work? I have heard from friends that they supposedly change the shape of the eye by "pressuring" it into taking the correct shape. I am fairly sure that they work as normal lenses, refracting the light that enters them, but I would like some definite clarification of this. Poromenos 23:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Edwardian 02:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"The first cosmetic contact was designed by optometrist named frankie for the price of about $5000 to a playboy model for a halloween photo shoot. (please fill in the name of this woman and date, its the photo of her wrapped with a snake)" This article looks like it needs some cleanup....Jackk 00:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is an important treatment for large corneal erosion or abrasions. It not only improves patient comfort, but helps the epithelium heal in an organized manner. I think this is a legit section, though could be rewritten. Comments? --Natebw 17:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should absolutely put bandage lenses back in a seperate section. I also think we should spread up the corrective and the cosmetic lens into seperate sections.--Fenice 18:49, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the detail on the bandage lenses earlier in the article. Bandage lenses are a sub-set of medically prescribed contact lenses. They are important but represent an extremely low proportion of contact lenses. So, I think the detail should remain but it does not merit its own section.

jkohi-p]] 00:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC))

Agreed, but it shouldn't be burried in a paragraph on comsmetic lenses. Maybe not a BCL section, but at least its own paragraph --Natebw 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added various bits of information to this article in recent days. I would like to continue and I propose the following sections:

Replacement frequencies (new section discussing one day vs. weekly vs. monthly etc lens replacement)

Lens designs (spherical, toric, bifocal, monovision, orthokeratology). This would incorporate some of the existing sphere vs. toric section.

Wearing modalities (daily wear vs. extended wear). This would use some of the detail from the existing section.

Lens care systems, using some of the existing material.

Adverse events with contact lenses.

I would appreciate any thoughts on the above. Cheers. (Wiki-p 00:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think all of these are worthwhile. I would especially be intresting in expanding the adverse events section.--Natebw 03:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One question: Is it appropriate to single out Acuevue? If brands are to be added, at the very least Ciba and Cooper should be included as they worn by many patients. --Natebw 01:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any objection to adding another picture showing what contact lenses actually look like? I'm thinking of this one. Joyous | Talk 16:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, please. Are these soft lenses?--Fenice 11:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if they're soft or not. They look soft, but I don't think I've seen hard ones, so I'm a poor judge. My second image-related question involves the picture of the eye with the lens inserted. Can anyone see the lens there? I can't, and I'm wondering what purpose that image is serving. Joyous | Talk 02:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These lenses are definitely soft. A good picture of hard or "Gas Permeable" lenses would be nice for comparison. And yes, if you expand the picture with the lens inserted, you can clearly see the lens. Natebw 04:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I very stupidly failed to look at the expanded image. Sorry. Joyous | Talk 22:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you guys still interested in a picture of an RGP (hard) contact lens? I could put it next to a soft one as well (I wear one hard one and a soft one) and there is a significant size difference --funkyteaspoon (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many people are unfamiliar with "Perspex" and only know PMMA as "Plexiglas." Both are trademarks, but since the neutral term "PMMA" would also be unfamiliar to most people, I changed the mention of it to "Perspex/Plexiglas." The link is unchanged, since Plexiglas simply forwards to Perspex anyway. Using both names (at least on the first mention of the substance) makes it clear to all, and lets the article stand on its own. Even if you were to click over to "Perspex," the article in its current state doesn't mention other trade names for PMMA. You'd have to go to its talk page to find out. So there's my convoluted rationale for a very simple edit. Ckamaeleon 04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOLLOW-UP: So actually, the Perspex link goes to a disambig page. I changed it to link to Polymethyl methacrylate, which is a fancy, filled out article that mentions both trqademarks and other trade names.Ckamaeleon 04:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a type of lens that one wears overnight to reshape the cornea. It's removed in the morning and your vision is improved or restored. After about 3 days it degrades again. I heard abotu it as an alternative to corrective surgeryt and don't see why they shouldn't be included in the article.Ckamaeleon 10:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote some of 'spherical v toric', what was written would make no sense to a non-specialist. This article needs lots of expansion.--CorvetteZ51 09:16, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A peer review request has been made for Keratoconus. If anyone would like to contribute to that, it would be very welcome. BillC 22:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because there is a cleanup tag on the article. Worldtraveller 21:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was inappropriate to put so many things on the to do list and not discuss them on the talk page first. If that is the case, feel free to (re)move any items. That being said, I am excited about this project and am determined to make this page top notch. I especially want to cover the factors that go into prescribing contacts as well as proper contact hygein and complications that may result from poor compliance. With so many people wearing contacts, I see this as a public health issue. Natebw 03:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's a problem with adding the things to the todo list. If there's a disagreement, we can discuss it here on talk. Regarding your question on the list, about specific patient populations, I'd recommend putting it in the "prescription" section right now. We may choose to do something different with it as the article develops more. Joyous | Talk 03:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who was the California optician who refined the plastic lens? Does anyone have a reference for this? Also, much of the info in the "Rigid vs. soft contact lenses" section can be moved to the "History" section. Rewster 06:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrt to usage, there appears to be no mention of why people chose contact lens over glasses. Two reasons come to mind for me

• sport - safety/conviencence, etc.
• Cosmetic/vainity - Source [1] quotes a small survey for reasons as 44% therapeutic, 34% cosmetic and 22% convenience.

Other possible usage topics - can you swim in them? [2] says no, unles they are scleral. Same source also mentions that air conditioning in offices/airplanes drys them out. Just some ideas to throw into the mix as my prose writing isn't up to much! :) MartinRe 14:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They can also be used in movies and amusement parks (though rarely outside of these fictional settings) to make the iris appear unnatural in appearence. Is there something I'm missing? When are cosmetic lenses widely used in amusement parks? Joyous | Talk 00:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some contact lenses cover the white (or sclera) of the eye; these are referred to as scleral lenses.
This text seems misplaced under Cosmetic contact lenses, sclerals being a shape of contact lens rather than a usage; but it's a bit difficult at present to see where this sentence might be better placed. BillC 01:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find a good photo of gas permeable contact lenses? I tried to take some at the office this morning, but I do not have a good camera for shooting small objects. I will try again and upload the photos to Commons for consideration. Natebw 16:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a photo of an RGP lens here Image:KC-lens.jpg, but it's not a specially exciting photo. I can have a go at taking another one, though. BillC 20:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KC-lens.jpg is much better than I could do. I think this is good photo and should be used. Natebw 22:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Single use lenses are also useful for people who use contacts infrequently." Doesn't sound quite right to me, I'm trying to express that people who were glasses as well as contants would find daily disposibles better, as they would used them as required, but if you have monthly disposible and only wear them once or twice that month, you still have to throw them away. MartinRe 23:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This part should adress, what the differences between daily disposable, monthly disposable and other lenses are, and not find POV-arguments for wearing them. --Trickstar (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found the heading names under Types of contact lenses to be a little confusing, so I took the liberty of renaming them. I'm new around this article, so if anyone disagrees, please just revert me and I won't be offended. BillC 00:20, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the subheadings needed to be changed, but several of the terms you suggested really are not the common usage. I'm sure we can come up with simpler ones we all agree on. Natebw 00:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information in the History section (1) is repeated in the Constructional Material section (3.2). As I read the article, I got to 3.2 and thought I was reading the article again, the content is so similar. These should either be merged together, or the appropriate information for each section isolated to just one or the other. Dansiman 05:23, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Maybe the materials section should be limited to the history of contact materials currently in use. Natebw 11:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to move all the history from the "contact materials" section, to the history section. The materials section should only be concerned with just that - materials. Fresheneesz 01:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I made a huge edit that merged the sections. There is still some overlap, but someone else can deal with that : ) . I think the materials section should go over more about what the materials do, and not about when there were developed etc. I didn't change content, but a change in content of that section might be good. Fresheneesz 02:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was said on this page that August Muller made the first "true" contacts. I changed that to "more convenient" - but I was wondering what someone meant by "true" contact lenses - and by all means if i was wrong to change it, change it back. But if you do, please explain what a "true" contact lens is. Fresheneesz 02:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got my first eye glass prescription a year ago and I am thinking about switching to contacts. Can u guys tell me more about them. Is there a downside to contacts versus glasses. Do contacts move with your eyeball or is there only a circular field in your vision where everything is clear?--12.221.139.214 05:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All soft contacts move somewhat when they are in your eyes, and this allows you to see out of the corner of your eyes clearly with contacts when for normal glasses that would just be a blur. Toric lenses (for astigmatism[sp?) are somewhat more rigid, and consequently if your uncorrected vision is good enough to make out it's top and bottom it's best to orient it correctly. (The lense will fix it's oriention within your eye with minor help (blinking and moving the eyes up/down/left/right)) Non-toric lenses generally have no "up". Note that this is in contrast to inside-out; in which the only way to fix is to take them out. Actualy if looking thru one eye with a contact if there were a portion of your vision clear and another part not; that would indicate a problem. (Torn contact lense; lense inside out; etc.) Joncnunn 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be a good idea to point out the need to throughly rinse off the soap before either inserting or removing the contacts. (It's very painful if some of the soap is still on your fingers.) Joncnunn 18:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repost of my question on Talk:Visual acuity: Wikipedia needs some explanation of how diopter measurments fit with the "20/20" system of visual acuity. I'm looking for a rough equivalent of acuity and diopter measurements (which will have to be +/- becuase acuity does not determine myopia vs. hyperopia). Maybe a table with some standard acuity values (e.g. 20/20, 20/40, ... 20/400) and their equivalent diopter ranges? For example, it seems to me that 20/30 is equivalent to a +/- 1 diopter prescription. Kslays 14:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the link is completely redundant, then the pages should be merged. Perhaps some of these pages should be merged or reorganized: Corrective lens, Eyeglass prescription, Glasses, Visual acuity, Eye examination, etc. Kslays 16:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE: Corrective lens is a generic term encomposing both contacts and glasses. Jon 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That page's link was non useful; because it redirects to fungus and mostly talks about much larger fungi such as mushrooms. The link to the specific type of fungus is the useful one. Jon 18:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're mentioned in this article. [3] BhaiSaab ^talk 02:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i saw in so many brands that they write specific set of numbers after the brand name....like 55 ....do there any code or something for it?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.243.163.201 (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Usually, it means the percentage of the lens that's water, by weight. Collabi 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the mention of the name "ChromaGen" in the "corrective contact lens" subsection of the "Types of Contact Lenses" section was unwarranted. Seems a bit like advertisement to me. Even conceding that it is integral to the article, there is no proper lead-up to the word "ChromaGen" and no indication of it being a brand name. moreover, no link to a ChromaGen article. 202.141.155.253 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lead usefully mentions some numbers with regard to how many people wear contacts worldwide and in a couple of other countries, but one notable omission is how this compares to the numbers of glasses-wearers. I came here looking for something like "X million people wear contact lenses in country Y, compared with Z million people who wear glasses". It would be interesting to see how the proportions vary around the world. Loganberry (Talk) 00:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

somebody needs to point out, that 'multifocals' are not translating bifocals. part of the light entering the eye, is focused correctly, the 'wrong focus' part, is not focused correctly. There is no 'shift', loke there is in bifocal eyeglasses.CorvetteZ51 14:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

was: "piss off Leonardo da Vinci is frequently credited"

fixed to remove, "piss off".

EDIT: nevermind, someone else already did, haha.

Are there conditions other than 'dry eye' where contacts shouldn't be used? Also, I don't have a citable source for this, but university chemistry labs tend to prohibit wearing them. Harmful gasses or liquids can be trapped in or behind the lens, making them difficult to flush out, leading to substantial eye injury. Kanhef (talk) 20:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know ptosis and keratoconus could be complications of contact lens wear. Can anyone explain this or perhaps these should be removed. 220.233.5.191 (talk) 11:04, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these are for hard lenses and not soft. There should be many sources on this. William Ortiz (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a ridiculously long and seemingly random listing of people who have worn cosmetic contact lenses in various movies and music videos. This is already a long article and it really added nothing of value. That section could use a general clean-up, if someone has a particular interest in that aspect of contact lens. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered nominating Toric lens for deletion because it really doesn't add anything, but I think we could merge it and replace the By design section with more specific sections for each kind of contact lenses. Even if the toric lens article was just expanded I don't think they're different enough to warrant their own article.71.236.195.181 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toric lens has a more general use in optics, so if it can't be expanded it should probably be left as a stub or possibly merged elsewhere (an optics or lens article), but not into Contact lens. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this a little further, it seems like toric lens are already defined in Contact lens (so merging wouldn't help this article) and the merge was already done and reversed at Toric lens for the same reason I suggested above. I think you should remove the merge tags. BTW, Toric lens has already prod'd, so you will need to AfD it (please let me know if you do). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't thought of it being used in other contexts than contact lenses. I'll remove the merge tags. Is there any other appropriate tag requesting expansion of the article other than just the stub tag?71.236.217.190 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's the "expand" tag, which I've just added, since I had to look up the template anyway. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't anyone read the tech news? They're testing contact lenses that have miniature circutry in them that can project a HUD into the users eye! Just like the Iriscam's in Artemis Fowl! How ubercool is that? Imagine the potential for PC gaming! Anyway, the lenses are currently being tested on rabbits, to test for longterm health effects. There is a short segment on them in the tech news section of the latest edition (#150) of PCPP if anyone is interested. --Simpsons fan 66 02:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several studies showing that there is no significant difference in eye health depending on the distribution channel.

Under the "Contact lens prescription" section the article reads:

"Purchasing contact lenses online may save consumers time, but the process could cause more problems in the long run, according to a new study[35] reported in the January issue of Optometry: Journal of the American Optometric Association. The research, conducted by Joshua Fogel, Ph.D., and Chaya Zidile of Brooklyn College, found that individuals who did not purchase their contact lenses from an eye doctor, but from an online site or store, are potentially placing themselves at greater risk. The findings indicated that online and store purchasers (consumers who get their contacts at a wholesale club or optical chain outlet) are less likely to adhere to healthy eye care practices, as recommended by their eye doctor."

The article should NOT cite one single study that is contradicting a number of studies. Either it should include more articles or exclude the study that is included now.

The distribution of contact lenses is a long (decades) running story of conspiracy (the government's words not mine - FTC and Attorney Generals use this term for the industry's behaviour) between ECP's and manufacturers to make customers pay more for lenses. When I have the time I will compile a list of links to documents from sources such as the FTC, US Congress, McKinsey & Co etc. that help readers get first hand facts about contact lens distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.192.10 (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/contactlensrule/04-02235-1142.pdf "The author also notes that according to documents submitted by the Attorneys General of 17 states, including California, to FTC on September 7, 1997, a multi- state investigation failed to reveal any study showing a correlation between compromised ocular health and receipt of lenses through alternative channels rather than through eye- care practi tioners." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.192.10 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the brand name from this paragraph: "Newer generations of multipurpose solutions, such as OPTI-FREE RepleniSH are effective against bacteria, fungi, and acanthamoeba and are designed to condition the lenses while soaking". Sound like advertising, doesn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.223.165 (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph to the Insertion and Removal section discussing one aspect of contact lens use that is not mentioned. And that is in order to actually be able to use contacts, one has to learn to overcome the instinct that prevents us from touching our eyeballs with our fingers or other objects. It's separate from the blink reflex (though related). I do not believe this to be OR to include this. Aside from the fact there are few sources cited in the section anyway, it's common knowledge that one must train to put contact lenses in and remove them (this is reflected later in the section), and this includes overcoming the hesitency against touching the eyeball. I do know there are people who simply cannot do it (I saw a percentage listed somewhere) and thus cannot wear contacts; I happen to fall into that demographic. I attempted to wear contacts a few years back but abandoned it because I was unable to overcome the hesitancy. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Contact lens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, EdC (talk · contribs), BillC (talk · contribs), Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs), AED (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article as part of GA Sweeps. This article needs to be edited to meet the current standards of WP:WIAGA. I am about to outline a partial list of issues that need to be addressed. After I post this listing, I will give concerned and interested editors a week before I reevaluate the article's quality rating. I will be following along with the progress of the article and may make additional comments as it is appropriate.

• According to the alt text checker, the article needs WP:ALT text.
• According to the external link checker, the article has a deadlink and two suspicious links.
• According to the dablink checker, the article has two dab page links in need of attention.
• The article has numerous paragraphs without any citations. The article will require at least one citation per paragraph
• The article has numerous short paragraphs, and it would probably be improved if some paragraphs were merged or expanded.
• The article has a citation needed tag in need of attention.
• The article has several bulletpointed lists that should be put in prose form
• The article could benefit from an infobox
• See WP:CAPTION#Wording as it relates to the use of periods.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be monitoring the progress of this page and will comment and add further concerns as is warranted.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article claims that disposable daily lenses are thinner and weaker, without references. I believe that they are exactly the same stuff as less frequent change interval lenses. The difference is marketing. They are a different price point. People are willing to believe that the lenses branded as longer lasting really last longer, and thus pay more money for fewer of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.190.10.85 (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC) adlof fick has a funny name!!!!hahahaha[reply]

Citation link #26 (the one on adverse effects of cosmetic lenses) has a very disturbing image right at the top. Can I stick a warning on there? 216.170.23.231 (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else find that the inside-out lens subject goes on too long? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zallomallo (talk • contribs) 03:16, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing that people will always notice about any piece of written work is how well the particular piece was written. The history section of this article reads very well and is free of grammatical errors. All of the information is presented in an organized chronological form that is easy for any reader to follow. Also, all of the information was not only relevant, but also original in the sense that none of the information was repeated by multiple people contributing to the article. There were no instances of extra information being added in, every idea in this article effectively contributed to the article as a whole. The topic was completely covered from the origins of the idea of creating contact lenses up to the present day form of contact lenses. All of the information was correctly cited and all of the sources were authoritative, reliable articles from either reputable Internet websites or peer reviewed journals. One negative thing about this section of the article was the lack of insightful photographs used. The only picture in this section was a portrait of Adolf Fick, the man who is credited with creating the first usable contact lenses, made out of blown glass. More pictures of things directly relevant to contact lenses could have made this section at least a little bit more effective. I would recommend this section fo the article to any interested person, as I feel that it is an all around well written, informative article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HIST406-10dhaines4 (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can i use solution for soft lenses for my gas permeable lenses? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MSsippy (talk • contribs) 15:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you answered your own question. Multipurpose solution is designed to care for soft lenses. It will not cause any harm to your RGP lenses or your eyes, but it will not clean the lenses as well as a care system designed for RGP lenses. (Don't ask Wikipedia. Call your doctor.) Garvin ^Talk 18:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just moved old discussions to an archive page as most topics were several years old. I am planning a total re-write of this page. Anyone interested in helping is encouraged to respond to this topic or post on my talk page. Anyone opposed should do the same. I am copying the source code of the article to a text editor and I will likely post changes one section at a time. Thank you for your support and constructive criticism. Garvin ^Talk 02:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just made an edit and I want to justify it here. On Dec 3 2011, an edit was made to the replacement schedule section. The edit was not only without a proper source, but was untrue. Contact lenses are a medical device. As such, manufacturers can not make any claims not supported my medical research.

I would be glad to discuss this at length with anyone that disagrees. Garvin ^Talk 16:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some need for fact checking as the term "Silicone hydrogel" may have been used to describe lenses that are not silicone hydrogels. Garvin ^Talk 16:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the link to the Eye care professionals article previously found at the start of the Contact Lens Prescription section. The Eye care professionals article is poorly and confusingly written and does not easily supplement the knowledge of someone trying to learn about contact lenses. I plan to improve that article, but in the meantime, the link will be removed. Garvin ^Talk 03:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the perfect description for contact lenses. Follow our simple steps to save on your contact lens purchase: Visit your eye care practitioner for a complete eye exam and to be fitted for your contact lenses. Your eye care practitioner will provide you with the lens that works best for you. If you go to buy the contact lenses then you must know about that products. And my suggestion is therightcontactlens.com because it is only for good and best contact lenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.174.21.168 (talk) 05:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dear wikipedia Contacts are your user help you can use the on your user. if you want to come with your computer that,s ok lots of love ved. Xxx Dear wikipedia if you want to bring your documents that,s ok. lots of love ved. Xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.212.56 (talk) 09:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear wikipedia i think you can come to my house september 20th. lots of love ved Xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.212.56 (talk) 09:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi i was wondering if you can come at 7:30 thank you. lots of love ved Xxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.212.56 (talk) 09:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please place myopia in the article for readers who are unfamiliar with that term. Thank you. 64.128.27.82 (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

A contact lens, or simply contact, is a lens placed on the eye. It is a contact lens placed on the eye to correct vision. (could you please add to correct vision). Funkyeyes123 (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done:. The next sentence already states that contacts are used to correct vision and for cosmetic reasons, which are both correct. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi,

My name is Rosa Trieu and I'm a graduate student at USC, helping Andrew Lih on a research project for Wikipedia. Would you mind granting me access to edit the contact lens page?

Thanks very much!

Regards, Rosa Rosatrieu (talk) 07:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rosa and welcome, to avoid getting disappointed before you edit I just wondered what is that you wish to change or add to this article? if you don't like to discuss in this talk page before actually editing I recommend you to edit less important pages and after a few days you will be auto-confirmed and will be able to edit this page. However, the preferred approach is that you discuss it here first. Kiatdd (talk) 09:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page is no longer protected. RudolfRed (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually self-training in contact lens use is not recommended. Kiatdd (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general, contact lens use is thought to be safe as long as the proper precautions are adhered to. The most prominent risks associated with long-term, chronic low oxygen to the cornea include increased epithelial permeability, bacterial adherence, microcysts, corneal edema, endothelial polymegathism and potential increase in myopia.^[1] Mishandling of contact lenses can also cause corneal abrasions, which can progress to bacterial keratitis which can lead to corneal perforations, scarring, and vision impairment.^[2] Furthermore, decreased corneal sensitivity following extended contact lens wear may increase a person’s susceptibility to becoming infected without being aware of it.^[3]

I incorporated this info into the article. Garvin ^Talk 15:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]