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

John M. Sparrow, MBBCh, DPhil, DO, FRCS, FCOphth
Leicester, England

Arch Ophthalmol. 1990;108(9):1209.

	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.

—Chylack et al¹ are to be congratulated on the development of the Lens Opacities Classification System II (LOCS II) method. Their pursuit of excellence has been rewarded in a system that is repeatable, and can be applied equally to in vivo clinical slit-lamp grading as well as to the grading of cataract photographs.

In their article, the authors compare the LOCS II system with the Oxford Clinical Cataract Classification and Grading System.² They make the point that the Oxford system is "much more complex than the LOCS II." This comment is true of the system as a whole, the philosophy behind the design of the system being to provide a composite system for the quantification of a selection of common cataract features, in addition to those major features documented by LOCS II. However, some investigators may prefer to limit themselves to the quantification of major . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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