You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Scientific reports
Sensitivity and specificity of scanning laser polarimetry using the GDx
Compose a Response to This Article
Compose Response

More information about text formats

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 22 March 2016
    Analysis of GDx printout

    Dear Editor

    The paper by Munkvitz et al. deals with the interpretation of the Nerve Fiber Analyzer (NFA) printout in a sample of healthy and advanced or early glaucomatous eyes. Three independent readers, at different levels of clinical experience, classified GDx printouts while being masked with respect to the eye condition and optic disc pictures. A questionnaire was used by readers to determine diagnosis but n...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on: 22 March 2016
    Subjective evaluation of GDX printout detects asymmetric glaucoma

    Dear Editor

    Recently, Munkwitz et al. reported excellent sensitivities and specificities of scanning laser polarimetry in detecting glaucoma when printouts were subjectively evaluated by experts having at least nine years experience with the device [1].

    The authors clearly defined a major difference with previously published studies, in that they evaluated GDx printouts of both eyes, although 23 of the...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.