 |
|
Contradictions in the Amblyopia Treatment Studies—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
Drs Lempert and Kushner1 question a number of decisions made in designing our randomized trial of patching vs atropine in children aged 3 to younger than 7 years with moderate amblyopia. We have previously answered similar questions from Dr Lempert both in press and in private communication.2-4 The design of any randomized clinical trial requires a number of decisions regarding which treatments to compare and which outcome measures to use. Those decisions are made in light of the specific questions being asked and current understanding of the disease.
The decision to repeat the measurement of visual acuity in the sound eye when visual acuity was less than 20/20 was made to help distinguish cases of possible reverse amblyopia from variability of testing or reduction in visual acuity owing to changes in refractive error. This repeat testing of the sound eye did not affect the predefined primary study outcome . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Michael X. Repka, MD;
David K. Wallace, MD;
Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD;
Raymond T. Kraker, MSPH;
Eileen E. Birch, PhD;
Susan A. Cotter, OD;
Sean Donahue, MD;
Donald F. Everett, MA;
Richard W. Hertle, MD;
Jonathan M. Holmes, BM, BCh;
Graham E. Quinn, MD, MSCE;
Mitchell M. Scheiman, OD;
David R. Weakley, MD for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
RELATED LETTER
Contradictions in the Amblyopia Treatment Studies
Philip Lempert
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(2):285.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Two-Year Follow-up of a 6-Month Randomized Trial of Atropine vs Patching for Treatment of Moderate Amblyopia in Children
The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(2):149-157.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
