This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
In reference to your invitation to comment on the annual review of the Uvea presented by Dr. Aronson in the Archives (79:490-501 [April] 1968), I believe that a review limited to those papers which, in the author's opinion, are of major significance is much more interesting for the reader. This is especially true if the author of the review interprets the papers and adds comments based on his own experience.
I suppose, however, if this policy is continued, that the reviewer will concentrate on other facets of the uvea in ensuing years, eg, neoplasms, degenerative changes, trauma, clinical aspects of uveitis. This method would then allow for a more comprehensive review of several years work on each type of problem. It is apparent that during a single year there really are not enough new ideas on any one subject to allow real conclusions to be made.
Specifically, in regard
Brockhurst RJ. COMMENTS ON ARONSON'S ANNUAL REVIEW. Arch Ophthalmol. 1968;80(4):532. doi:10.1001/archopht.1968.00980050534029