 |
|
The Effectiveness of Patching for Amblyopia Should Be Tested With Untreated Control Subjects—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
We thank Drs Lempert, Bloom, and Gottlob and her colleagues for their interest in our study. Drs Lempert and Bloom suggest somewhat opposing viewpoints in the interpretation of our results. Dr Lempert suggests that our study was too controlled, and Dr Bloom suggests that it was not controlled enough. Dr Lempert postulates that the observed improvement could be related to the study patients behaving differently than would patients in the "real world" because of, in his words, "an awareness of being observed" and "special attention received." He is implying that compliance with treatment is better in the study than in the real world, which results in greater improvement in the amblyopia than would be seen in the real world. Dr Bloom suggests that the lack of a difference could be reflective of poor compliance on the part of the 6-hour patching group such that the actual amount of . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Michael X. Repka, MD
Baltimore, Md
Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD;
Danielle L. Chandler, MSPH;
Raymond T. Kraker, MSPH;
Pamela S. Moke, MSPH
Tampa, Fla
Jonathan M. Holmes, BM, BCh
Rochester, Minn
Eileen E. Birch, PhD
Dallas, Tex
Susan A. Cotter, OD
Fullerton, Calif
Richard W. Hertle, MD
Columbus, Ohio
Graham E. Quinn, MD;
Mitchell M. Scheiman, OD
Philadelphia, Pa
for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
RELATED ARTICLE
The Effectiveness of Patching for Amblyopia Should Be Tested With Untreated Control Subjects
Philip Lempert
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(3):423-424.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Contradictions in the Amblyopia Treatment Studies--Reply
Repka et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2006;124:285-287.
FULL TEXT
|
