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  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Ocular/ Adnexal Tumors  • Ophthalmology, Other  • Dermatology  • Melanoma  • Alert me on articles by topic

Simmons Lessell, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(7):965.

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

Even a perfunctory comparison between the leading American ophthalmology journals of today and those of only 25 years ago reveals striking differences. The dearth of female authors (and editorial board members) has to a great extent been redressed, and there has been a remarkable increase in the prevalence of authors with non-European surnames. Current journals are more cosmopolitan, with many valuable articles contributed from previously underrepresented regions of the world. However, one of the most important changes in content is the increased proportion of articles describing the results of collaborative, multi-institutional, prospective investigations designed to evaluate the treatment or epidemiology of specific diseases. While many treatment trials have industrial sponsors, the National Eye Institute is probably the main source of support for these large-scale prospective ophthalmic investigations. During the last 25 years, the National Eye Institute dedicated nearly $700 million (about 10% of the extramural budget of . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED ARTICLE

Legacy of the Collaborative Ocular Melanoma Study
Bertil Damato
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(7):966-968.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT