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?

Alfred Sommer, MD, MHS
Baltimore, Md

Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(4):564-565.

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

I read with interest the insightful editorial by Carl Kupfer, MD, in the July 1996 issue of the ARCHIVES¹ stressing the importance of obtaining "cost outcomes along with the clinical and quality-of-life outcomes" as integral components of randomized clinical trials. Recent studies more than justify Dr Kupfer's focus on the need for identifying clinical outcomes that actually affect the everyday functioning of individuals we seek to help.

It was interesting to note that the National Eye Institute, Bethesda, Md, is developing "a vision function assessment-quality-of-life instrument to be used in all RCTs." At least 2 types of quality-of-life measures have generally been employed. One measures an individual's sense of well-being, such as the instrument indicating that patients with myopia who are undergoing refractive surgery are more concerned with improved vision than with ridding themselves of glasses.² The second measures changes in an individual's perceived ability to function, like . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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