Welcome to Optometry Simplified.
In this weekly newsletter, I've curated the best resources to help you grow personally and professionally.
My mission is to find what's best for my patients and my practice.
Here's what I've found...
Links I Liked
Treating RCE aggressively in this manner is crucial.
It may even be a "game changer" (more on that wonderful phrase below) way of preventing future RCE events. At least my clinical experience says so. Ahmad Fahmy, OD reviews the crucial aspects of RCE management. Optometry360
This has become one of my favorite podcasts.
I love Trader Joe’s. One of the highlights of my week is stopping by to pick up groceries. So when the Acquired Podcast featured TJ's, I listened right away. As an optometrist and business owner, I can’t help but think: What if our practices felt more like Trader Joe’s?
Where patients look forward to coming in. Where simplicity and culture make us stand out more than any marketing campaign ever could. Acquired
Research I'm Reading
AMD progression is not inevitable.
In a recent study by Johanna M. Seddon et al., individuals with early or intermediate age-related macular degeneration who were in the highest third of a genetic risk score (adjusted for age, race, and sex) still showed a significant decrease in progression to advanced AMD when they adopted healthy lifestyle habits. So keep recommending those lutein and zeaxanthin supplements. Ophthalmology
Deep Thoughts
I've developed an allergy to the phrase "game changer."
So when I first heard Neurolens described as a “game changer,” my skepticism radar went off.
It wasn’t that I doubted the sincerity of my colleagues; I’ve just seen too many “revolutionary” treatments fall apart once you actually apply the filter of evidence-based medicine.
For transparency: while I’ve recently served in a consulting capacity with Neurolens, this essay (and this newsletter) is entirely unsponsored. The thoughts here are my own, shaped by data, experience, and real-world observation.
The best way I’ve found to make any decision in practice, whether it is in clinical care or evaluating new technologies, is through the lens of Evidence-Based Medicine.
According to Sackett and colleagues, EBM is “the systematic integration of the best available research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values.” It’s not about blind allegiance to research, nor is it about trusting our gut alone. It’s a framework for making wise, balanced decisions amid uncertainty.
The 2024 randomized controlled trial on Neurolens showed a 1.53-point greater reduction in HIT-6 scores compared to the control group, which was statistically significant but not clinically significant.
At first glance, that’s not groundbreaking.
However, upon closer examination, the average patient’s score dropped from 63 (severe impact) to below 60, the threshold at which headaches shift from significant impact to substantial, representing an entire categorical improvement. That is a similar improvement achieved by many first-line migraine medications at 30 days of use.
Then came the moment that turned my skepticism into conviction.
My own receptionist, who had quietly battled daily headaches for five years, decided to try Neurolens. Within a week, she was headache-free. Her once-daily routine of coffee and three Advil turned into no coffee. No Advil. Just relief.
She later told me, “I thought my life was going to revolve around having a headache.”
That story didn’t replace the data; it clarified it.
The research shows a measurable but modest benefit.
Clinical experience confirms real-world impact.
And patient preference overwhelmingly favors comfort, clarity, and relief.
That’s where Neurolens lives for me now—not as hype, but as a case study in how the wise practitioner applies evidence, experience, and empathy to treat real human suffering.
Still, I’ve seen a few respected academic colleagues publicly call this research “bad science” or even “published scientific nonsense.”
I understand the instinct; we should all be skeptical of corporate-funded trials. However, I don’t agree that the presence of modest or mixed findings renders something unworthy of publication.
Do we really want companies to withhold studies that show statistically significant but modest or clinically uncertain results?
In truth, that kind of transparency is exactly what science needs more of, not less. Like free speech, the scientific process depends on open publication and public scrutiny.
We should examine the data, discuss its interpretation, and let the truth emerge over time.
Suppressing results simply because they don’t tell a dramatic story contributes to a problem that’s long plagued medicine and the pharmaceutical industry.
The truth is, every decision we make in medicine carries some degree of uncertainty.
Every diagnosis, every treatment plan, every new technology we adopt—all of it exists in that gray space between what we know and what we hope to achieve. When we apply the principles of evidence-based medicine with humility, balancing research, experience, and patient values, we’re not eliminating uncertainty, but adjudicating it wisely.
The lesson isn’t just about Neurolens; it’s about how we evaluate anything new in medicine: with open eyes, humble skepticism, and a commitment to let evidence and patients lead the way.
Practice Performance Partners Pick
Most ODs are treating dry eye every day, but few are getting paid for it accurately.
This guide by Christopher Wolfe, OD, from Peeq Pro, clears up the gray areas of coding and shows how to make dry eye management both clinically sound and financially sustainable.
Can you do me a favor? If you found any of these resources helpful, share this newsletter with one of our colleagues!
See you next week!
--Kyle Klute, OD, FAAO