[Skip to Navigation]
June 1964


Author Affiliations

2307 Lindy Ave Lawton, Okla 73505

Arch Ophthalmol. 1964;71(6):884-885. doi:10.1001/archopht.1964.00970010899024

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


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 underThe 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

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview