Computers Linked to Glaucoma?

An anonymous reader writes "Maybe we should have listened to our parents and gone outside instead of playing video games. In newly published study in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, heavy computer users were 74% more likely to develop visual field problems as compared baseline in a group of 10,202 randomly selected workers. Furthermore, heavy computer users were found to be 81% more likely to develop glaucoma."

Comments

Re:Shoddy research

[Politburo]

Gosh I hope you're joking. Either that or you don't understand the word "likelihood". Your one counterexample does not mean that the research is no longer valid.

Re:CRT vs LCD

[Politburo]

What was your age at the time of eyesight change and family history of eye problems? In my family, eyesight deteriorates in the teens, but the change levels off in adulthood. My dad hasn't had his prescription changed in many, many years. I still have mine changed every 2-3 years. Correlation != causation, etc.

Re:Obviously

[Pii]

Excellent!

There's your justification for the Medical Marijuana prescription!

Re:bad conclusions?

[American AC in Paris]

It's just as likely that the real reason for the link is the opposite of what they suppose: that persons who have the genetic defects and/or environmental factors in their lives which lead to a higher rate of glaucoma are more likely to be computer users....

...do you say this because you have access to research that refutes their theories? Or do you say this because you don't like their conclusion, and are thus inclined to dismiss their work with the Cudgel of Correlation Is Not Causation?

It is not "just as likely" that computer workers are, as a group, genetically different from other workers. That there may be "environmental factors" doesn't really make any difference to their conclusion: for some reason, computer workers exhibit a much higher rate of visual problems. Yours is a plausible scenario, but do give the researchers some credit. Grant them the fact that they're eminently more qualified to examine this particular issue than you are, and that it's worth taking their findings seriously, even in light of the fact that their findings aren't carved in stone. Hell, the researchers themselves would likely be among the first to emphasize that their findings are not fact. This is one of the founding tenets of scientific research, for crying out loud.

Simply because John Q. Citizen can fire off a plausible alternative after five seconds' thought does not mean that his theory is "just as likely" to be the case as the result of a published research project.