Methods: A cross-sectional, observational, questionnaire-based study was conducted from February to September 2025 among 60 presbyopic participants with myopia aged 41-75 years. Participants comprised 30 PAL users and 30 SV users, with each modality group containing 15 low-myopia and 15 high-myopia participants. Vision-related QOL was assessed using the Refractive Status and Vision Profile (RSVP) questionnaire, with lower scores indicating better QOL. Visual satisfaction was assessed at distance, intermediate, and near with and without habitual spectacle correction. Independent-samples t-tests were used for group comparisons, and paired t-tests were used for with-versus-without spectacle comparisons; p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results: PAL users demonstrated lower RSVP scores and therefore better QOL than SV users in both myopia categories. Among low myopes, mean RSVP scores were 3.45 for PAL users and 23.59 for SV users, whereas among high myopes they were 27.62 and 44.87, respectively. The overall difference in QOL between correction modalities was statistically significant (p<0.001). The greatest modality-related difference in visual satisfaction occurred at intermediate vision: mean scores were 1.07 versus 2.67 among low myopes and 2.00 versus 4.13 among high myopes for PAL and SV users, respectively. Distance satisfaction was comparable between modalities, while near-vision differences were relatively small. High myopes demonstrated greater visual difficulty than low myopes despite spectacle correction. Overall, 50 participants (83.3%) were satisfied with their current spectacles; among the 10 participants wishing to change correction, 9 (90.0%) preferred switching from SV to PAL.

Conclusion: PAL use was associated with better vision-related QOL and greater intermediate-vision satisfaction than SV correction among myopic presbyopes. Higher myopia was associated with greater visual burden despite spectacle correction. These findings support individualized, patient-centered spectacle prescribing, particularly for patients with substantial intermediate and multi-distance visual demands.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 100 eye care practitioners using a structured questionnaire. Information was collected regarding demographic and professional characteristics, frequency of low vision encounters, awareness and knowledge of World Health Organization (WHO) low vision criteria, provision of low vision devices, practitioner- and patient-level barriers, awareness of concession facilities, and strategies for improving low vision services. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize participant characteristics, knowledge, service provision, perceived barriers, and recommended interventions.

Results: All practitioners (100%) reported awareness of the WHO definition of low vision, and 98% recognized the relevance of visual acuity and visual-field assessment. However, only 60% reported using WHO-based criteria in clinical practice, while 59% and 60% correctly identified the specified visual-acuity and visual-field thresholds, respectively. This demonstrated an important gap between general awareness and application of specific clinical knowledge. Regarding service provision, 66% reported providing both optical and non-optical low vision devices, whereas 33% provided optical devices alone and 1% provided non-optical devices alone. Major practitioner-level barriers included inadequate awareness and training, limited motivation, time constraints, and device-related expense. Patient-level barriers prominently included inadequate awareness and motivation, service-related expense, and concerns regarding the cosmetic acceptability of devices. Awareness of concession facilities was reported by 82% of practitioners. A combined strategy incorporating public awareness, practitioner awareness, and professional training was the most frequently recommended approach (65%).

Conclusion: Although general awareness of low vision was high, substantial gaps remained in the recognition and clinical application of specific low vision criteria and in comprehensive service provision. Strengthening structured low vision education and continuing professional development, improving access to appropriate devices and referral pathways, and increasing public awareness may help overcome practitioner- and patient-level barriers and facilitate greater integration of low vision rehabilitation into routine eye care.

Methods: This hospital-based cross-sectional observational study included 130 participants presenting with occupational OSFB injuries. Demographic characteristics, occupation, work activity at injury, foreign-body material and anatomical location, presenting symptoms, protective-eyewear use, reasons for non-use, previous OSFB injury, self-removal attempts, and awareness of ocular risks were recorded. Categorical variables were summarized using frequencies and percentages. Associations were assessed using Pearson's χ² or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate. Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed to identify factors independently associated with protective-eyewear non-use, with adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Participants were predominantly male (123/130, 94.62%), and 68 (52.31%) worked in the metal industry. Metal grinding/cutting was the most common activity at injury (73, 56.15%). Metallic foreign bodies were predominant (77, 59.23%), with the cornea being the most frequently affected site (92, 70.77%). Ocular irritation was the most frequently reported symptom (77, 59.23%), followed by pain (65, 50.00%), redness (61, 46.92%), and watering (41, 31.54%). Only 27 participants (20.77%) reported using protective eyewear, whereas 103 (79.23%) reported no protection. Among non-users, the most common reason was PPE non-availability (36/103, 34.95%), followed by other reasons (24, 23.30%) and forgetting to wear PPE (21, 20.39%). Awareness of potential harm from self-removal was reported by 84 (64.62%) participants. PPE use was significantly associated with this awareness in bivariate analysis (29.8% vs 4.3%; χ²=10.17, p=0.001). In multivariable analysis, high-risk work activity was independently associated with PPE non-use (adjusted OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.01–4.54, p=0.047), whereas awareness was not statistically significant after adjustment (adjusted OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.26–1.08, p=0.081).

Conclusion: Occupational OSFB injuries predominantly involved male workers engaged in metal-related, particulate-generating activities, with metallic foreign bodies and corneal involvement being most common. The high prevalence of PPE non-use highlights an important preventable safety gap. Prevention should combine reliable PPE availability, hazard-specific protective eyewear, worker adherence, and targeted occupational eye-health education.

Methods: This study included 60 patients with DR involving 100 treated eyes who underwent retinal laser photocoagulation. Best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA) was assessed at baseline and at 1, 3, and 6 weeks after treatment. At 6 weeks, visual outcomes were categorized as improvement (≥2 Snellen lines), stable vision, or worsening (≥2 Snellen lines). Outcomes were evaluated according to baseline BCDVA, DR severity, HbA1c category, maculopathy status, diabetes duration, age, and sex. Longitudinal changes in BCDVA were assessed using Tukey HSD pairwise comparisons, and associations between clinical characteristics and visual outcomes were examined using appropriate statistical analyses.

Results: At 6 weeks, 17 (17.0%) of 100 treated eyes demonstrated improvement of ≥2 Snellen lines, 81 (81.0%) remained stable, and 2 (2.0%) worsened by ≥2 Snellen lines. No statistically significant differences were observed between baseline and Week 1 (mean difference, 0.03; Q = 0.64; p = 0.9698), Week 3 (mean difference, 0.05; Q = 1.37; p = 0.7664), or Week 6 (mean difference, 0.05; Q = 1.37; p = 0.7664) BCDVA. Visual outcomes varied across baseline BCDVA and DR severity categories. Diabetes duration was significantly associated with post-laser visual outcome (p = 0.02636).

Conclusion: Retinal laser photocoagulation was predominantly associated with short-term preservation of visual acuity, with 81.0% of treated eyes maintaining stable vision at 6 weeks and 17.0% demonstrating clinically meaningful improvement. Baseline visual acuity, DR severity, and diabetes duration were associated with variation in post-treatment visual outcomes. These findings emphasize the importance of baseline clinical characteristics in prognostic counseling and individualized follow-up following retinal laser photocoagulation. Further prospective studies with larger samples and longer follow-up are warranted to determine the durability of these visual outcomes.

Methods: Medical records of patients treated for DME at a tertiary vitreoretinal referral center in India between June 2022 and November 2024 were retrospectively reviewed. The analysis included 50 eyes belonging to 45 patients who received three consecutive monthly intravitreal ranibizumab injections. Best-corrected distance visual acuity (BCDVA), best-corrected near visual acuity (BCNVA), OCT-derived CMT, and IOP were documented before treatment and at approximately 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Longitudinal changes in these parameters were evaluated statistically across the observation period.

Results: During follow-up, mean BCDVA improved from 0.562 ± 0.305 logMAR at baseline to 0.246 ± 0.163 logMAR at Week 12. Mean BCNVA similarly changed from 0.806 ± 0.295 to 0.454 ± 0.146 logMAR. Retinal thickness also decreased progressively, with mean CMT falling from 482.84 ± 85.99 μm at baseline to 292.52 ± 46.46 μm at Week 12. Significant longitudinal changes were identified for BCDVA, BCNVA, and CMT (all p < 0.001), with large time-associated effects for both visual acuity measures and a very large effect for CMT. Mean IOP increased from 15.90 ± 2.79 mmHg to 16.92 ± 2.36 mmHg over the same period (p = 0.0037); however, no sustained ocular hypertension requiring treatment or sight-threatening injection-related complication was recorded.

Conclusion: A three-monthly-injection course of ranibizumab was accompanied by meaningful short-term functional and anatomical improvement in this real-world DME cohort. The modest rise in IOP was not associated with clinically important short-term ocular hypertension. Because the study was retrospective, single-center, and lacked an untreated comparison group, the observed changes cannot be attributed exclusively to ranibizumab. Prospective studies involving larger populations and longer observation are required to establish the persistence of treatment response and longer-term ocular safety.

Methods: A cross-sectional comparative study was conducted on 60 myopic participants (30 spectacle wearers and 30 SCL wearers) aged 18–35 years. Standardized optometric tests evaluated accommodation (amplitude, near point, relative accommodation), vergence (near point, fusional ranges, facility), and stereopsis. Statistical analyses included independent t-tests and Pearson correlations at α = 0.05, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), Cohen’s d, and post-hoc power reported.

Results: SCL wearers exhibited greater accommodative amplitude (Δ0.60 D, p = 0.03, d = 0.57) and positive relative accommodation (Δ0.27 D, p = 0.02, d = 0.63), along with a closer near point of accommodation (Δ0.70 cm, p = 0.04, d = 0.54). Vergence parameters also favored the SCL group, with a 1.30 cm closer near point of convergence (p = 0.01, d = 0.69) and higher vergence facility (p = 0.03, d = 0.57). Stereoacuity improved slightly but was not statistically significant (p = 0.21, d = 0.33). Positive correlations were observed between accommodative amplitude and vergence facility (r = 0.49, p < 0.01) and between near point of accommodation and convergence (r = 0.43, p = 0.02), indicating coordinated enhancement.

Conclusion: Soft contact lenses provide superior accommodative and vergence function compared to spectacles, promoting greater binocular efficiency and visual comfort. These findings suggest that SCLs may reduce eyestrain and improve endurance during prolonged near work and digital device use, representing a more physiologically natural correction modality for young myopic adults.

Methods: A cross-sectional analytical mixed-methods study was executed from August 2023 to July 2024 in 12 randomly chosen schools in Rajgarh District, Madhya Pradesh. Using multistage stratified random sampling, we screened 300 kids between the ages of 9 and 15. They did a visual acuity test, an objective and subjective refraction test, and a pre-validated questionnaire. All diagnosed students received spectacles, and a follow-up after 6–8 weeks evaluated adherence and functional enhancement. Descriptive statistics, χ² tests, t-tests, and multivariable logistic regression were used to look at the quantitative data. Qualitative responses were subjected to thematic analysis.

Results: Refractive errors were detected in 24% (n=72; 95% CI: 19.2–28.8) of the students. Myopia was the most common (45.8%), followed by hyperopia (29.2%) and astigmatism (25%). Age (aOR = 1.18; p = 0.004) and living in a city (aOR = 2.09; p = 0.006) were both important predictors. After correction, the mean visual acuity improved significantly from 0.38 ± 0.12 to 0.05 ± 0.03 LogMAR (p < 0.001). At the follow-up, 83% of participants said they wore glasses regularly, and there were significant improvements in visibility in the classroom (91%), concentration (87%), and relief from headaches (82%).

Conclusion: In Central India, refractive errors are very common among students. Significant visual, academic, and psychosocial benefits were obtained from spectacle correction, confirming the efficacy of school-based screening models. The results encourage district-level school health systems to continue integrating refractive-error services.