This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (2)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Stephen A. Obstbaum, MD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1996;114(9):1128.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

OPHTHALMOLOGISTS ARE facing a dilemma concerning the justification of pursuing technological advances in an environment where a premium is placed on considerations of cost-effectiveness and clinical needs. The consequences of this issue are highlighted in the recent editorial by O'Day¹ and the Letter to the Editor by Masket.² The opinions expressed by each of these knowledgeable and concerned ophthalmologists emphasize the conflict that the current debate in health system reform has engendered. A major concern is that individuals who possess little understanding of eye care will become the arbiters and decision makers in developing guidelines for the management of ophthalmologic conditions. Ophthalmology has assumed a proactive, leadership role in guideline development and outcome assessment to head off this possibility. However, the struggle to reconcile the clinical value of emerging technology and prove its clinical effectiveness remains a daunting challenge.

Although most physicians view the concept of guidelines with . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
New York, NY

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