Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 30 July 2003
- Published on: 9 July 2003
- Published on: 30 July 2003Authors' reply to Foot and StanfordShow More
Dear Editor
We apologise for stating that the paper by Radford et al.[1] was based on a questionnaire reporting survey rather than active surveillance reporting (ASR) as set up by the British Ophthalmic Surveillance Unit (BOSU). The latter system relies on clinicians reporting monthly to a central office (BOSU). We note that BOSU is only responsible for collecting data and is not involved in publications by o...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 9 July 2003Acanthamoeba Keratitis: correct interpretation of surveillance dataShow More
Dear Editor
The comment of Seal et al.[1] on the report by Radford et al.[2] on the incidence of acanthamoeba keratitis highlighted a number of points of interest when interpreting the results of a surveillance project carried out through the British Ophthalmological Surveillance Unit (BOSU).
The correspondence describes the study as a questionnaire survey. This is incorrect; cases were asc...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.