Hello EyeDock users,

I’ve been working on a new version of EyeDock’s soft lens searches for quite a while now, and think it’s finally time to show you the result. I’m excited about the new features and I hope you’ll find them useful in your practice. 

I’m considering this a beta version for a short while, at least until all of you get a chance to put this through it’s paces. As a solitary developer (who spends most of his time examining eyeballs) it’s difficult for me to test EyeDock on every OS, browser, etc., so I need you all to help me out. So it goes without saying, let me know if you run into any problems. When I feel it’s ready I’ll more completely integrate it into EyeDock.

See below for a description and a video describing some of the highlights of the new searches.

<——click Soft Contact Lens Searches to use the searches!

Sincerely,

Todd

Todd M Zarwell OD FAAO

I made a number of changes to simplify the interface, yet keep the searches robust . However, the feature that I’m most excited about is the search by refraction feature.

In the “old days”, searching for a lens by power used to take multiple steps: Vertexing. Transposing (at least for some of us). Filling out numerous fields on a form. Picking a lens. Finding out the -2.25 cyl doesn’t come in axis 50. Picking a different lens.

Now, this can be done with a single step. Type (or paste in) your refraction:

EyeDock will then:

Here's a list of the soft lens companies listed in EyeDock. Click a company name to view a list of their lenses.

I've had a contact lens calculator on EyeDock for nearly 10 years now, and overall it's been very well received. I was therefore pretty surprised to receive an email a few days ago taking issue with how I require the keratometry values to be entered. The calculator gives these instructions:

Enter the keratometry measurements in this format: 45/43.25@90.

When I made the calculator I was pretty pleased with myself for allowing my users to simply enter a string of text, as opposed to selecting each value from separate dropdown boxes. However, to make it easier to parse the input I figured I better restrict the user to a certain format. I decided to prohibit entries like this:

45.00 @ 180 / 43.25 @ 090

Hence my instructions listed above.

Now, when I was at the Illinois College of Optometry we learned to record K's like this:

horizontal meridian power / vertical meridian power @ vertical meridian 

eg) 44.00 / 46.00 @ 090

This seemed about as simple as could be - on a manual keratometer you record it like so:

the drum on the left / the drum on the right @ the number on the axis wheel

NOTE: I originally wrote this post on my personal blog. However, since this largely describes my thought process while creating EyeDock's Plaquenil calculator, I thought it would be appropriate to post it here...

As all eye care providers should be aware, there have been some revisions in the recommendations of how we monitor our Plaquenil patients secondary to two articles ^1,2 published earlier this year.

Whenever I want a quick review of Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine retinotoxicity I always head to Ron Melton and Randall Thomas's excellent website, Eyeupdate. As expected, their site has been updated with the new recommendations and I won't bother duplicating their efforts here.

I will, however, plunge a little deeper into some of the dosaging concerns they brought up in their article. After all, I never met an algebraic equation I didn't like, and I have a obsession for looking at data and trying to establish trends. In addition, I thought I might be able to create a simple calculator to help my fellow eye care professionals determine their patient's retinotoxic risk as it relates to plaquenil dosage. It's not that the calculations are particularly difficult, but, being Americans and using the cumbersome English system of measurements, it's requires a few more steps than a busy doctor should have to take.