This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Ophthalmological Disorders, Other  • Patient-Physician Relationship/ Care  • Treatment Adherence  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Drug Therapy  • Adherence  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

I read the article by Scheiman et al¹ entitled "A Randomized Clinical Trial of Treatments for Convergence Insufficiency in Children" in the January 2005 issue of the ARCHIVES with great interest. I would like to congratulate Scheiman and colleagues for venturing into this area where, truly, not many randomized clinical trials have been done.

I would, however, like to raise some important issues regarding the entire study, particularly with reference to the treatment regimens. As Kushner² has rightly pointed out, the intensive therapy that Scheiman and colleagues have provided for the treatment group is much more intensive than the therapy for home exercises. For example, a child in group 1 exercises for only a total of 15 hours (15 min/d for 12 weeks, although this could have been just 6-8.5 min/d) whereas a child in group 2 exercises for nearly 75 hours (an excess of 60 hours of the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Jitendra Jethani, MS, DO, DNB

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Convergence Insufficiency: Randomized Clinical Trial—Reply
Mitchell Scheiman, G. Lynn Mitchell, Susan Cotter, Jeffrey Cooper, Marjean Kulp, Michael Rouse, Eric Borsting, Richard London, Janice Wensveen, and the Convergence Insufficiency Treatment Trial (CITT) Study Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(12):1760-1761.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT