You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 98, Issue 2
  • Authors’ response: A randomised controlled trial of alcohol delamination and phototherapeutic keratectomy for the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion syndrome

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letters
Authors’ response: A randomised controlled trial of alcohol delamination and phototherapeutic keratectomy for the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion syndrome
  1. Elsie Chan1,2,
  2. Vishal Jhanji2,3,
  3. Marios Constantinou2,
  4. Howard Amiel4,
  5. Grant Snibson1,2,
  6. Rasik B Vajpayee1,2
  1. 1 Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, Melbourne Victoria, Australia
  2. 2 Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  3. 3 Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  4. 4 Omni Eye Specialists, Denver, Colorado, USA
  1. Correspondence to Professor Rasik B Vajpayee, Centre for Eye Research Australia, University of Melbourne, Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital, 32 Gisborne St, East Melbourne, VIC 3002, Australia; rasikv{at}unimelb.edu.au

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bjophthalmol-2013-304677

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 thank Prakash and Jain for their interest in our recently published paper comparing alcohol delamination (ALD) and phototherapeutic keratectomy (PTK) for the treatment of recurrent corneal erosion syndrome (RCES).1 The inclusion criterion for the study was patients with symptomatic RCES not responding to conservative treatment. This criterion is routine in studies relating to RCES, as a patient's symptom of recurrent pain is the primary indication for treatment in the clinical setting. However, stratification of patients into groups based on pain at baseline would not have been worthwhile due to the subjective nature of pain and, in this study, the small number of participants.

    We used the subjective pain score as the primary outcome measure and recorded the number …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors EC drafted the letter. VJ, MC, HA, GS and RV reviewed the letter.

    • Funding The Centre for Eye Research Australia receives operational infrastructure support from the Victorian government. No funding was received for the conduct of this study.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Ethics approval Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital Human Research and Ethics Committee.

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

    Linked Articles