[Skip to Content]
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 1995

Early Office-Based vs Late Hospital-Based Nasolacrimal Duct Probing

Author Affiliations

Madison, Wis

Arch Ophthalmol. 1995;113(9):1103-1104. doi:10.1001/archopht.1995.01100090025015

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

Because the public bears such a large percentage of health care costs, physicians are coming under increasing pressure to provide care that is not only skilled and compassionate but also cost-effective. Out-come analysis and cost-benefit ratios are buzzwords of the 1990s. In this issue of the Archives, Kassoff and Meyer1 have addressed the issue of cost-effectiveness in the management of congenital nasolacrimal duct obstruction using a technique called clinical decision analysis and have provided us with important and useful information. They have concluded that early office-based probing is substantially more cost-effective than a later, hospital-based procedure. Although cost is an important consideration for decision making by patients and physicians, other factors that I will discuss below need to be part of the equation. To paraphrase the noted physicist, Nehls Bohr, "The opposite of a false statement is a true statement, but the opposite of a true statement may be

References
1.
Kassoff J, Meyer DR.  Early office-based vs late hospital-based nasolacrimal duct probing: a clinical decision analysis . Arch Ophthalmol . 1995;113:1167-1170.Article
2.
Curtis CP, Greenslet F. And himself. In: The Practical Cogitator . 3rd ed. Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin Co; 1962:290-293.
×