Dr Hawkins is correct in his conclusion that presentation of median visual acuity in one report1 and mean visual acuity in the other2 does not account for the difference in visual acuity outcomes between the two groups of eyes. The affected fellow eyes of patients enrolled in the clinical trial of laser photocoagulation for extrafoveal choroidal neovascularization in their study eyes1 were quite different from the study eyes of patients enrolled in the clinical trials of laser treatment for subfoveal choroidal neovascularization.2 Although some fellow eyes had subfoveal neovascular lesions, few, if any, would have met the eligibility criteria imposed on study eyes enrolled in the later study. The diversity of lesions in these fellow eyes is supported by the visual acuities, which ranged from 20/20 or better to 20/800 or worse at the time patients enrolled.1 Thus, any comparison of visual acuity outcomes of
Hawkins BS, Burgess DB, Fine SL. Visual Prognosis of Eyes With Submacular Choroidal Neovascularization-Reply. Arch Ophthalmol. 1994;112(7):874–875. doi:10.1001/archopht.1994.01090190016008
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: