This Article  • References  • 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  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Daniel Finkelstein, MD; John Clarkson, MD; Israel Goldberg, PhD; Allyn Kimball, PhD; David Orth, MD; Stephen Ryan, MD; Clement Trempe, MD
For the Branch Vein Occlusion Study Baltimore

Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(3):311-312.

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

In Reply.

—Brooks et al raise three interesting questions that were considered at length throughout the BVOS by the BVOS Executive Committee. We will outline only some of our past considerations here for the sake of brevity.

With respect to the status of the vitreous, the publication by Jalkh et al appeared four years after the BVOS onset; we believed that a retrospective analysis of cases entered within the first four years could not exclude significant observer bias. Additionally, for the purposes of a multicenter trial, uniform photographic documentation would have been crucial; the BVOS Executive Committee (which included a coauthor of the Jalkh et al article) did not believe that a uniform protocol for photographic documentation of vitreous status was feasible for all participating centers at that time.

With respect to the amount of nonperfusion, quantitation is difficult in most cases without the preparation of photographic composites and extensive . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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