You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 97, Issue 4
  • Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in subjects over 60 years of age, and its implications for designing clinical trials

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Spectral-domain optical coherence tomography in subjects over 60 years of age, and its implications for designing clinical trials
  1. Oliver Comyn1,2,
  2. Catey Bunce1,2,
  3. Praveen J Patel1,
  4. Caroline J Doré3
  1. 1 NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, London, UK
  2. 2 UCL Institute of Ophthalmology, London, UK
  3. 3 UCL Clinical Trials Unit, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Oliver Comyn, NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, Moorfields Eye Hospital, 162 City Road, London EC1V 2PD, UK; olivercomyn{at}doctors.org.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2012-302923

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 read with interest the paper by Caramoy et al recently published in the British Journal of Ophthalmology—our attention having been captured by the inclusion of clinical trial design in its title.1 Developments in stem cell treatments and the advent of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor treatments have very much placed ophthalmic clinical trials in the public arena. We feel however that the main conclusion drawn by the authors that ‘clinical trials using central retinal thickness as an endpoint are feasible in terms of sample size needed’ needs to be tempered in the light of the following issues.

    1. Power: Designing a clinical trial with 80% power means that there is a 20% chance of missing …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors OC and CB wrote the article. PJP and CJD edited the OCT and statistical sections respectively.

    • Competing interests OC receives unrestricted research funding from Novartis. PJP has acted as a consultant for Heidelberg. CB and CJD have no competing interests.

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

    Linked Articles