You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Authors' response
  1. Amy L Hennessy1,
  2. Joanne Katz2,
  3. Rengappa Ramakrishnan3,
  4. Ramasamy Krishnadas,
  5. Ravilla D Thulasiraj4,
  6. James M Tielsch2,
  7. Alan L Robin5
  1. 1Baltimore, Maryland, USA
  2. 2Department of International Health, Johns Hopkins University, Maryland, USA
  3. 3Aravind Eye Hospital Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli, India
  4. 4Aravind Eye Hospital Madurai, Madurai, India
  5. 5Department of Glaucoma, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
  1. Correspondence to Dr Amy L Hennessy, 1333 E Clement Street, Baltimore Maryland 21230, USA; hennessy.amy{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2011-300439

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    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 appreciate both the interest in our manuscript and the comments made by our colleagues, and we would like to take this opportunity to respond. First, we did not conclude that an afferent pupillary defect (APD) was not a helpful tool for any glaucoma screening; in truth, it may inexpensively help to distinguish normal cases from abnormal ones. An APD is relatively non-specific and may be caused by a number of conditions other than …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Competing interests None.

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