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?

Francis W. Price, Jr, MD
Indianapolis, Ind

Ronald G. Marks, PhD
Gainesville, Fla

Jill S. Gonzales
Indianapolis

Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(10):1226.

	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

Thank you for the letter regarding the predictability information in our recent publication "Astigmatism Reduction Clinical Trial: A Multicenter Prospective Evaluation of the Predictability of Arcuate Keratotomy."¹ The confusion arises over the interpretation of the results presented in Table 5. Predicted results in Table 5 are provided for male patients, but note that 69% of our study participants were women. Our results indicated a strong gender effect, with women averaging 0.37 D less effect than men. If you subtract 0.37 from each result in the "revised" formula in Table 5, you see many more lower predicted results with the revised nomogram. However, where the revised formula shows a greater predicted result, the revised nomogram should be used—such as for the 30-year-old with 2 D of astigmatism—if your goal is a conservative result. The two incisions at 30° and two incisions at 45° plans are the instances in . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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