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  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

N. Warren Hindle, MD
Calgary, Alberta, Canada

Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(10):1375.

	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.

—The editorial committee of the Cryopathy for Retinopathy of Prematurity (ROP) Cooperative Group¹ has expressed opinions and advice that are in conflict with the findings of their study. Also, the results of treatment are significantly disparate from those in three other studies. That difference requires explanation, and the direction being given to ophthalmology must be challenged.

The study shows that treatment of zone I disease does not produce a significant benefit (P0.4; x² [Yates corrected]). The trend may be there but the proof is not, yet they recommended treatment of both eyes.

The study shows a highly significant benefit to the treated eyes with bilateral zone II threshold disease (P <.0001; x²) and they do not recommend treatment of both eyes! They cite a proposal for the determination of treating both eyes,² which is flawed^3,4 and so complex that it is . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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