Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Authors' response
  1. Paolo Fogagnolo1,
  2. Chiara Sangermani2,
  3. Francesco Oddone1,
  4. Paolo Frezzotti3,
  5. Michele Iester4,
  6. Michele Figus5,
  7. Antonio Ferreras6,
  8. Simona Romano7,
  9. Stefano Gandolfi2,
  10. Marco Centofanti1,
  11. Luca Rossetti7,
  12. Nicola Orzalesi7
  1. 1G. B. Bietti Foundation - IRCCS, Rome, Italy
  2. 2Eye Clinic, University of Parma, Parma, Italy
  3. 3Dipartimento di Scienze Oftalmologiche e Neurochirurgiche, Universita' degli Studi di Siena, Siena, Italy
  4. 4Clinica Oculistica, Università di Genova, Genova, Italy
  5. 5Department of Neuroscience, Eye Clinic, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy
  6. 6Department of Ophthalmology, Miguel Servet University Hospital, University of Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain
  7. 7Department of Medicine, Surgery and Dentistry, Eye Clinic, San Paolo Hospital, University of Milan, Milano, Italy
  1. Correspondence to Dr Paolo Fogagnolo, Eye Clinic, San Paolo Hospital, Via di Rudini' 8, Milano 20142, Italy; fogagnolopaolo{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We would like to thank Dr Rao and colleagues for their interest and comments regarding our study.1 In their letter, they pointed out two major issues concerning studies on long-term perimetric fluctuation: the definition of stability of the disease and the methods used to calculate fluctuation.

Dr Rao and colleagues claimed that the use of morphological data would have been desirable to define progression, as commonly done in studies on progression when both morphological and functional data are available (ie, progression is defined by means of morphological criteria in order to analyse the performance of functional parameters and vice versa).

In …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.