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?

Luca Rossetti, MD
Baltimore, Md

Nicola Orzalesi, MD; Alessandro Liberati, MD
Milan, Italy

Nicola Scorpiglione, MD
Chieti, Italy

Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112(6):727-728.

	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

We are pleased that Novack and Robin and Vogel and coauthors agreed with us that clinical trials on medical treatment of glaucoma do not provide relevant information for clinical practice. Some of their points, however, call for careful consideration, and we would like to present our counterarguments. Novack and Robin argue that we overlooked many studies that measured visual field changes. Let us be clear on this. The vast majority of studies to which they refer compared one drug with another without the use of an untreated control group. With such a design, one cannot answer the basic question of whether any treatment is better than no therapy.

Novack and Robin also believe that we unfairly emphasized the lack of coherence and consistency of clinical trials in the medical treatment of glaucoma. Indeed, we did say in our article¹ that lack of consistency and coherence is not . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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