Winners of the 2020 Naylor Prize.

Abstract

Although all Naylor Prize winners down the years are to be commended for their work, those attempting to complete undergraduate projects in the first half of 2020 faced a few more significant challenges compared to previous years. This impacted on the ability of some universities to submit applications for the Prize, but if ever there was a year to suggest that anyone completing their undergraduate optometry degree can call themselves a winner, 2020 was it. Jon Naylor, as well as being a pioneering academic optometrist at the University of Manchester, was awarded one of the UK profession's first PhDs for his work investigating polarisation optics of the eye. He also introduced project work as part of undergraduate optometry in 1964. In recognition of his contribution, the Naylor Prize was inaugurated in 1986, and now recognises undergraduate projects across three categories: literature reviews, clinical reviews of specific areas of practice and experimental projects. Here we present the winning and highly commended entries, and hopefully something good to remember about 2020. Aston University's Soneji Humaira was Highly Commended in the clinical reviews category for the project, ‘An investigation into the ocular neurophysiology of pain sensitivity and wetness’, which considered whether techniques to assess these qualities in the skin could be adapted to supplement the currently limited options to assess the ocular surface. This very detailed review found that it should be possible to adapt various skin assessment methods. The winning entry focused on an area of great need, with Cardiff University's Meera Patel scooping the Prize with her project, ‘Human iPS cells and the future potential for recovery of the retina’. Human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells as a prospective treatment to repair retinal pigment epithelium have the advantage of being a potential source of unlimited retinal cells and are also patient specific. Meera's project assessed their possible use, including previous transplants, and this comprehensive report was praised by the judging panel for demonstrating a clear understanding through exemplary academic writing. It found most of the current evidence suggests that iPS cells could be used as a treatment to help restore vision where others are unlikely to help. We stick with stem cells for the Highly Commended literature review, ‘How close are we to curing visual impairment with stem cell therapy?’, by Zahrah Lalji of Aston University. This clear and balanced report provided a detailed analysis of stem cell therapy as a management option for patients with visual impairment. It suggested that the next six years may be crucial to the clinical application of research on such therapy, with several types of stem cell treatments appearing to be both safe and improving long term vision and short term quality of life. The winning literature review was by Danya Lahmami of City, University of London, entitled, ‘Toric versus spherical soft contact lenses in the correction of low to moderate astigmatism’. This rigorous review provided a mature discussion of the clinical implications of the review's findings, broadly supporting the use of toric soft contact lenses in patients with low to moderate astigmatism, but clearly acknowledging the shortcomings of the current evidence base. The judging panel for the experimental projects category found themselves in lengthy discussions to reach a very difficult final decision. Thankfully, the number of entries in this category afforded two Highly Commended positions, the first of which went to Ying Bing Chung of Glasgow Caledonian University, for the project entitled, ‘Gradual vs fast adaptation in neophyte monthly soft lens wearers’. This project collected a massive amount of data but crafted it into a comprehensive results section, producing the conclusion that a gradual adaptation approach appears to be unnecessary in the first few days of monthly soft lenses wear for neophytes. David Roper of Cardiff University was also Highly Commended for, ‘Criterion for visual performance in central and offcentre gaze directions’, with the judges praising a robust methodology and data skills well beyond that expected in an undergraduate study. The project's findings challenge the idea that increased visual acuity (VA) at the null point in nystagmus patients is the result of reduced nystagmus intensity and increased foveation, and proposed that VA is reduced away from the null point due to a shift in visual performance criteria. The winning entry was from Faizah Faruque of the University of Manchester, ‘Are the values of central corneal thickness measured by community optometrists in agreement with those measured by hospital optometrists?’ In short, generally yes (although there was some significant interobserver variability), and technique refreshers and routine auditing may help to eventually eliminate the need for additional measurements in secondary care. The panel praised the report's clearly explained results and the writing's consideration of the potential impact on enhanced Published online: 14 December 2021