Download PDFPDF
Long-term functional outcomes of different subtypes of primary congenital glaucoma
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  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter,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

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Comments on “Long-term functional outcomes of different subtypes of primary congenital glaucoma”
    • Ishaana Sood, Public Health Researcher Dr Shroff's Charity Eye Hospital
    • Other Contributors:
      • Devindra Sood, Senior Consultant- Glaucoma Services; Head- Centre for Academics, Research and Training
      • Narindar N. Sood, Senior Consultant

    Dear Editor,

    We read the article published by Chaudhary, et al (1) with great interest and laud them on the quality and design of their study. Primary congenital blindness (PCG) poses a challenge to clinicians, both in terms of diagnosis, and treatment. (2)

    We would like to bring to the authors’ notice a similar study conducted in 2017 (3) of 230 eyes of 121 PCG patients having undergone a primary CTT. This study differed from the present study in the fact that it had a longer average follow-up period of 28.87 years with a more concentrated follow-up range of 21.5-38 years. There were also two main differences in the findings of the two studies.

    Contrary to the results in the present study where the infants with PCG fared better than the neonates (48.9% >6/60), the previous study found that 76.3% newborns with PCG had a vision better than 6/60. Additionally, the previous study, found visual acuity to be better than 6/60 in a greater proportion of patients (76.1%) at the last follow-up, as compared to the proportion in the study by Chaudhary et al (55.3%). Applying the WHO recommendation of measuring vision in the better eye, (4) the results improved to 89.3% in the study by Sood et al. (3)

    A possible reason for these disparities between the studies could be the difference in presentation times of the patients and the study inclusion criteria. While the present study reports late presentation, over half of the patients (53%) in the earlier pub...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.