[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
July 14, 1989

To Best Was Always to Worst, but Worse Is Better, if Good and Bad Are Relevant

Author Affiliations

Society for the Preservation of English Language and Literature Mountain view, Calif

Society for the Preservation of English Language and Literature Mountain view, Calif

JAMA. 1989;262(2):210. doi:10.1001/jama.1989.03430020052023
Abstract

To the Editor.—  In the March 24/31 issue of JAMA, there is an article entitled "Cryotherapy in Infants With Retinopathy of Prematurity" and subtitled "A Decision Model for Treating One or Both Eyes [italics added]."1 I gather that the only newborns studied were those who had two eyes, the normal situation. The article goes on to explain that "this study includes four possible choices: treat no eyes, treat the worst eye [italics added], treat the best eye [italics added], or treat both eyes." The decision tree on page 1752 includes the following treatment possibilities: "Treat Worst Eye" and "Treat Best Eye."I believe that a newborn with two eyes can have a worse eye (as opposed to a worst eye), and a better eye (as opposed to a best eye). One would need three or more eyes to have a "worst eye" or a "best eye."

×