Have we misinterpreted the study of Hoogerheide et al. (1971)?

In 1971, Rempt et al. reported peripheral refraction patterns (skiagrams) along the horizontal visual field in 442 people. Later in the same year, Hoogerheide et al. used skiagrams in combination with medical records to relate skiagrams in emmetropes and hyperopes to progression of myopia in young adults. The two articles have spurred interest in peripheral refraction in the past decade. We challenge the understanding that their articles provide evidence that the peripheral refraction pattern along the horizontal visual field is predictive of whether or not a person develops myopia. First, although it has been generally assumed that the skiagrams were measured before the changes in refraction were monitored, Hoogerheide et al. did not state that this was the case. Second, if the skiagrams were obtained at an initial examination and given the likely rates of recruitment and successful completion of training, the study must have taken place during a period of 10 to 15 years; it is much more likely that Hoogerheide et al. measured the skiagrams in a shorter period. Third, despite there being many more emmetropes and hyperopes in the Rempt et al. article than there are in the Hoogerheide et al. article, the number of people in two types of "at risk" skiagrams is greater in the latter; this is consistent with the central refraction status being reported from an earlier time by Hoogerheide et al. than by Rempt et al. In summary, we believe that the skiagrams reported by Hoogerheide et al. were taken at a later examination, after myopia did or did not occur, and that the refraction data from the initial examination were retrieved from the medical archives. Thus, this work does not provide evidence that peripheral refraction pattern is indicative of the likely development of myopia.