Download PDFPDF
Association of low birth weight with myopic refractive error and lower visual acuity in adulthood: results from the population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS)
Compose Response

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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

  • Published on:
    Comments on: Association of low birth weight with myopic refractive error and lower visual acuity in adulthood: results from the population-based Gutenberg Health Study (GHS)
    • Ishaana Sood, Community Ophthalmology and Research Dr Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital
    • Other Contributors:
      • Shalinder Sabherwal, Head- Community Ophthalmology and Public Health Research

    Dear Editor,

    We read the article published by Fieß, et al (1) with considerable interest and laud them on their study and the large cohort. Considerable work has been done earlier, which looks at factors associated with refractive errors, however few studies document association with birth weight. Keeping this in mind, we feel that there are a few points requiring further clarity in this article.

    The authors mention their inability to control for factors such as paternal refractive error and family history. However, previous studies not only discuss the paternal refractive error and family history, but also expand the affecting factors to include the number of myopic parents. (2) In the study design described by Höhn et al. where comprehensive information on living conditions and birth weight was collected via computer-assisted telephone interviews, (3) information on number of myopic parents could also have been collected, and would have proven to be an important covariate in the analysis.

    The authors also report that 8369 participants provided birth weight data, of which 45 were excluded due to unreliable self-reported data [<1000g (n=7) or >6000g (n=38)]. However, tables 2 and 3 report analysed results based on 8369 participants not 8324 (after exclusion of the 45). Even though 45 is an insignificant number, and does not affect the results as such, this aspect of the results needs further clarity.

    Lastly, while the authors mention, furt...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.