This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (11)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Harry A. Quigley, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(2):186-189.

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

It's an exciting time in the treatment of patients with glaucoma. For example, in the last 15 years there have been dramatic swings in recommendations about who should be treated for glaucoma.

See also pp 203 and 205.

Major improvements in therapy have developed, and diagnostic techniques that were considered definitive have been shown to be fallible. Two articles in this ARCHIVES by Airaksinen and Drance¹ and Airaksinen et al² characterize the intensive search to improve the diagnosis of glaucoma. I will summarize why such efforts are important to every ophthalmologist in the practical treatment of the patient with glaucoma.

Many reading this editorial remember when all patients with elevated intraocular pressure (IOP) were diagnosed as having glaucoma and treatment was started. Because pilocarpine hydrochloride and, to a lesser degree, epinephrine borate were often associated with ocular side effects, the unenviable choice between oral carbonic anhydrase inhibitors and . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Baltimore

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