 |
 |

We Can Aim at Better Results in Coming YearsReply
 |
 |
| 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
The design for the Multicenter Trial of Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity revolved around our desire to test whether cryotherapy would prevent blindness. With that concept in mind, we used a binary functional outcome of favorable vs unfavorable visual acuity. Visual acuity of 20/200 or worse is customarily classified as legal blindness. This was our unfavorable visual acuity outcome definition, which produced the semantic oddity of the term favorable to describe the opposite category, even though this would include eyes that were somewhat visually impaired. Thus, Jalali and Hussain correctly note that visual acuity in the range of 20/60 to 20/200 is not necessarily favorable in the usual sense of the word.
Macular dragging, an intermediate outcome between structurally favorable and unfavorable, was categorized as favorable since macular morphology is relatively preserved. Dragged macula can produce pseudostrabismus by altering the angle , or it may induce anisometropia that . . . [Full Text of this Article] AUTHOR INFORMATION
Earl A. Palmer, MD
RELATED LETTER
We Can Aim at Better Results in Coming Years
Subhadra Jalali and Anjli Hussain
Arch Ophthalmol. 2006;124(4):604-605.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLES
15-Year Outcomes Following Threshold Retinopathy of Prematurity: Final Results From the Multicenter Trial of Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity
Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(3):311-318.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Premature for Life
Alistair R. Fielder
Arch Ophthalmol. 2005;123(3):392-394.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Multicenter Trial of Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity: Ophthalmological Outcomes at 10 Years
Cryotherapy for Retinopathy of Prematurity Cooperative Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2001;119(8):1110-1118.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|