This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • 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?

Stuart L. Fine, MD; Maureen G. Maguire, PhD

Arch Ophthalmol. 1997;115(7):915-916.

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

WE OPHTHALMOLOGISTS are very spoiled, indeed. Not only did we select a magnificent specialty that offers multiple opportunities to improve the quality of life of our patients, but, for a long time, it also seemed that every new therapy introduced was of some benefit to our patients, often enormous benefit. Beginning in 1976 with the first publication from the Diabetic Retinopathy Study, there was a series of publications cataloging and documenting the value of therapeutic intervention for branch retinal vein occlusion, neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), choroidal neovascularization in ocular histoplasmosis, diabetic macular edema, open-angle glaucoma treated with argon laser trabeculoplasty, and a host of others. Many practicing ophthalmologists assumed—and we can validate the authenticity of this assumption because we have heard the opinion expressed many times—that when the National Eye Institute supported a randomized clinical trial, it was only to document for the literature the value of a therapy . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
Philadelphia, Pa

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