You are here

Responses

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Clinical science
Long-term functional outcomes of different subtypes of primary congenital glaucoma
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:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on: 4 May 2020
    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.