Today marks a milestone that has been nearly four years in the making.
I’m incredibly proud to share the publication of our latest research examining the effects of optical intervention on balance following mild traumatic brain injury. It’s the culmination of years of collaboration, data analysis, peer review, revisions, and countless hours behind the scenes.
One of the questions I’m asked most often is, “What’s the research behind vision therapy and neuro-optometric rehabilitation?” It’s a fair question, and an important one.
Evidence matters. As healthcare providers, we have a responsibility to continually question what we do, measure outcomes, publish our findings, and refine our approach as new evidence emerges. But one thing I’ve come to appreciate is that research and clinical care operate on very different timelines.
The participants in this study were assessed during the second half of 2022. Since then, the data have been analyzed, the manuscript written, revised, peer reviewed, accepted, and finally published. That’s nearly four years from the first patient assessment to seeing the article in print.
During those same four years, our clinic has assessed and treated hundreds of individuals living with persistent concussion and dizziness symptoms. We didn’t stop helping people while waiting for publication. We continued doing what rehabilitation clinicians do every day – listening, measuring, collaborating with other healthcare providers, adapting treatment plans, and learning from every patient who walked through our doors.
That isn’t to diminish the importance of research. Quite the opposite.
Research gives us confidence that we’re moving in the right direction. It challenges our assumptions, identifies our blind spots, and ultimately makes us better clinicians. But rehabilitation has always required more than simply waiting for the next randomized trial to be published. It requires integrating the best available evidence with clinical expertise and, most importantly, the goals and experiences of the individual sitting in front of us. To me, that is what evidence-informed, patient-centred care truly means.
Our study followed 66 adults experiencing persistent symptoms after concussion. Each participant underwent objective balance testing before receiving an individualized optical prescription and was reassessed after wearing those glasses for just over three weeks on average. Rather than relying solely on symptom questionnaires, we measured balance objectively using force-plate technology.
The findings were significant and powerful. Participants demonstrated significant improvements in balance across all three sensory systems we evaluated – vision-dependent balance, proprioceptive balance, and vestibular (inner ear) balance – with the greatest improvements occurring in vestibular-related balance. These improvements were observed regardless of whether someone was early or late in their recovery, whether they had previously worn glasses, or whether they were male or female.
Science advances incrementally. Every well-conducted study adds another piece to the puzzle. This paper doesn’t answer every question, but it does add objective evidence to a growing body of literature supporting the role of vision in post-concussion rehabilitation.
I’m incredibly grateful to every patient who agreed to participate in this research. Without their willingness to contribute, studies like this simply don’t happen. I’m equally thankful to my co-author, Jason Scott, whose expertise strengthened this work immeasurably, and to the reviewers who challenged us to make the paper better.
Research is rarely quick, and it’s almost never glamorous. But today serves as a reminder that quietly collecting good data, asking difficult questions, and continually evaluating our clinical practice is worth the effort.
For our patients, our colleagues, and the future of neuro-optometric rehabilitation, this is one more step forward. I hope it’s one of many.
Until next month,
Dr. Paul Rollett, OD, FOVDR, FCCSO
