Responses

Download PDFPDF
Optic nerve head cupping in glaucomatous and non-glaucomatous optic neuropathy
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. 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  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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 [https://authors.bmj.com/after-submitting/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 [https://www.bmj.com/company/journals-terms-and-conditions-for-rapid-responses/] and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice [https://www.bmj.com/company/your-privacy/].
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:
    Optic nerve head analysis to rule out glaucoma
    • Sagnik Sen, Ophthalmologist AIIMS, New Delhi, India
    • Other Contributors:
      • Rebika Dhiman, Ophthalmologist

    Dear authors,

    We congratulate the authors for bringing out an ingenious theory regarding pathogenesis of cupping in glaucomatous (GC) and non-glaucomatous (NGC) eyes using this optical coherence tomography (OCT) model. (1) Differentiating a NGC from GC has been a point of discussion for decades and to finally have an objective parameter “anterior laminar depth (ALD)” which appears specific for glaucomatous cupping from this study is indeed beneficial. The authors have used a linear regression model to compare the GC and NGC eyes with healthy controls with adjustment of age, axial length and peripapillary choroidal thickness (PCT). However, it remains to be further studied, how the ALD is to be used for an individual patient, for eg., what cut-off of ALD above which a patient can be labelled as falling in the glaucomatous range. In this regard, we had a doubt regarding inclusion of PCT in ALD calculation. Since the authors have finally adjusted for PCT in the end, we wonder how the results will turn out if they would remove PCT from ALD measurement and compare the remainder measurement (ALD - PCT) between NGC and GC groups.
    Finally, we observed that in this sentence “No significant difference was found in visual field mean deviation (MD) <0.001).”, there is a typographical error and an inadequacy of explanation. No significant difference in visual field MD was indeed seen between NGC and GC groups (p should be >0.99 and not <0.001, as seen in Table...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.