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?

John R. Heckenlively, MD
Los Angeles

Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(9):1162.

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

To the Editor.

—In their article, published in the March 1988 issue of the ARCHIVES, Hunter et al¹ state that "attempts to elucidate the pathogeneses of these [genetic] subtypes have been confounded by studies that have considered all patients with RP [retinitis pigmentosa] as a single group," after which two RP studies by my colleagues and I are referenced.

Table 1 in our report² illustrates the great effort the UCLA RP Center takes to subdivide patients with RP on hereditary and test rationale, while our study (their reference 4), which correlated the fluorescein angiographic findings with presence or absence of antiretinal antibodies, also looked at differences between patients with typical rod-cone vs cone-rod RP degeneration (type I vs II RP, Baltimore classification). The authors appear to be critical of the inclusion of patients with RP simplex in studies, yet this group constitutes the greatest percentage of patients with . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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