—Brooks et al raise three interesting questions that were considered at length throughout the BVOS by the BVOS Executive Committee. We will outline only some of our past considerations here for the sake of brevity.With respect to the status of the vitreous, the publication by Jalkh et al appeared four years after the BVOS onset; we believed that a retrospective analysis of cases entered within the first four years could not exclude significant observer bias. Additionally, for the purposes of a multicenter trial, uniform photographic documentation would have been crucial; the BVOS Executive Committee (which included a coauthor of the Jalkh et al article) did not believe that a uniform protocol for photographic documentation of vitreous status was feasible for all participating centers at that time.With respect to the amount of nonperfusion, quantitation is difficult in most cases without the preparation of photographic composites and extensive
Finkelstein D, Clarkson J, Goldberg I, et al. More Information Needed Regarding Neovascularization and Vitreous Hemorrhage in Branch Vein Occlusion-Reply. Arch Ophthalmol. 1987;105(3):311–312. doi:10.1001/archopht.1987.01060030025004
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: