Ill let you in on a little secret: Most of the editors here at Review dread the annual Contact Lens Report. In fact, we dread virtually all annual reports, no matter what the focus isbe it contacts, glaucoma or presbyopia.

Its not that we dont like these topics; its just that when you do something often, it gets harder to come up with something original. Fortunately, this year, we didnt have to come up with the topic alone. Our Contact Lens Q+A columnist and associate clinical editor, optometrist Joseph P. Shovlin, gave us the idea for Managing Editor Jeffrey S. Eisenbergs blockbuster: The Reality of Super Vision, which details the level of vision correction that may be achievable with contact lenses.

Well, I thought, thats certainly original. Still, I wondered how much has really changed since Review first offered this annual report some 30 years ago. So, I looked back at some of our dustier issues. Its interesting (and somewhat amusing) to see whats changedand what hasnt. Heres a sampling of responses from Reviews National Panel surveys published in 1975 and 1977:

In 1975, only one panelist fit soft lenses exclusively, while another called the development of soft lenses merely a step in the right direction, and only a small step at that. He continued: Improvements are sorely needed in the areas of optics, manufacturing, public information and governmental control.

Some 34% of panelists preferred spectacles to contact lenses.

Women accounted for 73% of respondents contact lens patients; 36% were younger than age 18.

Several panelists felt that contact lens usage would increase dramatically if contacts were less expensive. On average, they charged $180 for hard lenses and $280 for soft ones.

Less than 20% of O.D.s charged less than $250 for fitting soft lenses; 40% said their soft lens fitting fees ranged from $275 to $325.

Two-thirds of the panelists preferred single-function solutions. Only one in 10 doctors preferred dual-function or multipurpose solutions.

More than two-thirds of O.D.s recommended six follow-up visits for both hard and soft lens fits.

The development of a soft toric was one of the most cited desires for future contact lens technology. But one respondent had another idea: a laser beam scanner that could map the topography of the cornea.

Thirty years from now, in 2035, I wonder what well think of this years Contact Lens Report? I certainly pity the writer who has to come up with something newer than Super Visionbut I wont hesitate to join him or her at the water cooler to laugh at the dusty old 2005 issue.