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?

Barbara S. Hawkins, PhD
Baltimore, Md

Dean B. Burgess, MD
St Louis, Mo

Stuart L. Fine, MD
Philadelphia, Pa

Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112(7):874-875.

	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

Dr Hawkins is correct in his conclusion that presentation of median visual acuity in one report¹ and mean visual acuity in the other² does not account for the difference in visual acuity outcomes between the two groups of eyes. The affected fellow eyes of patients enrolled in the clinical trial of laser photocoagulation for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization in their study eyes¹ were quite different from the study eyes of patients enrolled in the clinical trials of laser treatment for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization.² Although some fellow eyes had subfoveal neovascular lesions, few, if any, would have met the eligibility criteria imposed on study eyes enrolled in the later study. The diversity of lesions in these fellow eyes is supported by the visual acuities, which ranged from 20/20 or better to 20/800 or worse at the time patients enrolled.¹ Thus, any comparison of visual acuity outcomes of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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