This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.
—Thank you so much for allowing me to reply to Dr. Johnson's letter. I have been informed on several occasions that the 1948 Schiøtz table gives closer correlation with applanation values than does the 1955 scale. This is explained by the fact that the same scale reading is interpreted as showing a higher intraouclar pressure in millimeters of mercury using the 1948 table than with the 1955 one. However, Schiøtz scholars and tonography experts have apparently taken a definite stand that the 1955 table is more accurate and should replace the 1948 table. I do not propose to enter the controversy as to whether the 1948 or the 1955 Schiøtz table is preferable, since this seems like trying to abandon the better mouse trap in order to determine whether the poorer mouse trap should be loaded with limburger or liederkranz. Since Dr. Johnson agrees that the Goldmann
Smith JL. GOLDMANN TONOMETER-Reply. Arch Ophthalmol. 1967;78(3):417. doi:10.1001/archopht.1967.00980030419032
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: