This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paul T. Finger, MD
The New York Eye and Ear Infirmary New York, NY

JAMA. 1997;278(4):288.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—While I commend Mr Skolnick¹ for covering this promising experimental treatment option for "wet" (neovascular) macular degeneration, it was disturbing that only radiation oncologists were quoted with respect to the results of treatment. Since ophthalmologists were (or should have been) required to evaluate each patient's eligibility, measure visual acuity, and determine funduscopic changes, why were they conspicuously absent in the article?

As an ophthalmologist and specialist in ophthalmic radiation therapy, I have determined eligibility, supervised irradiation, and provided follow-up care for 300 patients with wet macular degeneration. I have determined that each patient had the wet form of macular degeneration, determined that each patient should be referred for radiation therapy consultation, treatment, or both, and followed up with each closely for evidence of both adverse effects and response to treatment. During the last 4 years, we have reviewed our charts periodically and noted few adverse effects . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?