This Article  • 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?

Thomas E. Acers, MD
2307 Lindy Ave Lawton, Okla 73505

Arch Ophthalmol. 1964;71(6):884-885.

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

The letter of Drs. O'Connor and Remington was referred to Dr. Acers, who offers the following reply:

To the Editor:

The comments by Drs. O'Connor and Remington are provocative, interesting, aptly presented, and partially irrelevant. Not irrelevant in content of thought, but in that they breach the intended and defined scope of the study under

The first criticism is in regards to the selection of cases for a double blind study. The patients were included in a random fashion in order to obviate just such criticism. Selection of the patients by the characteristics of their disease process would seem only to introduce another possible source of bias and subjectivity, the illaudable liability of any experimental design. I will refer the authors of this critique to Table 3 of the article. It is readily apparent that even through a process of random selection, the clinical characteristics of the patients under study . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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