HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

Correspondence to:

ARTICLES: M. J. Kupersmith, R. L. Gal, R. W. Beck, D. Xing, N. Miller, and The Optic Neuritis Study Group Visual function at baseline and 1 month in acute optic neuritis: Predictors of visual outcome Neurology 2007; 69: 508-514 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

Correspondence: Submit a response to this article

Correspondence published:

Visual function at baseline and 1 month in acute optic neuritis: Predictors of visual outcome

Olivier F. Gout   (18 October 2007)

Reply from the authors

Mark J. Kupersmith, Robin Gal, Roy Beck, Neil Miller   (18 October 2007)

Visual function at baseline and 1 month in acute optic neuritis: Predictors of visual outcome 18 October 2007
Olivier F. Gout, Department of Neurology, Fondation Ophtalmologique A de Rothschild 25 rue Manin 75019 Paris, France Send Correspondence to journal: Re: Visual function at baseline and 1 month in acute optic neuritis: Predictors of visual outcome ogout{at}fo-rothschild.fr Olivier F. Gout	In the paper by Kupersmith et al, there was a sentence which is confusing and may be misleading: “At 6 months, visual acuity was 20/50 or worse in 79% of patients with 20/200 or worse acuity at baseline...”. [1] Actually, this percentage (79%), according to their previous paper, corresponds to the ratio of the number of patients with poor visual recovery at 6 months whose baseline visual acuity was 20/200 or worse (n=22) to the total number of patients with poor visual recovery at 6 months (n=29). [2] The true percentage of patients with visual acuity 20/50 or worse at 6 months among patients with baseline visual acuity 20/200 or worse is 14% (22/156). References 1. Kupersmith MJ, Gal RL, Beck RW, Xing D, Miller N, and the Optic Neuritis Study Group. Visual function at baseline and 1 month in acute optic neuritis : predictors of visual outcome Neurology 2007;69:508-514. 2. Beck R, Cleary P, Jye-yu, Backlund M, Optic Neuritis Study Group. The course of visual recovery after optic neuritis : experience of the Optic Neuritis Treatment Trial. Ophthalmology 1994;101:1771-1778 Disclosure: The author reports no conflict of interest
Reply from the authors 18 October 2007
Mark J. Kupersmith, Neuro-Ophthalmology, Roosevelt Hospital, 1000 10th Ave., New York, NY 10019, Robin Gal, Roy Beck, Neil Miller Send Correspondence to journal: Re: Reply from the authors mkuper{at}chpnet.org Mark J. Kupersmith, et al.	We thank Dr. Gout for his comments on our article. He is correct. The senior author misinterpreted the data in Table 5 [2] as row percentages but they were column percentages. The correct statement would be: “Among patients with 6-month visual acuity <=20/50, at baseline 79% had <=20/200, 17% had 20/50- 20/190, and 7% had >=20/40 visual acuity. Six-month acuity <=20/50 occurred in 15% with <=20/200, 4% with 20/50-20/190, and 1% with >=20/40 at baseline.” Thus, as previously stated, recovery is not as good with poor baseline visual acuity but even with <=20/200 at baseline, recovery to >= 20/40 occurs in 85%. Disclosure: The authors report no conflicts of interest. Editor's Note: An erratum will also be published in an upcoming print issue of the Journal.