We would like to thank our colleagues from Vanderbilt for their comments. Although their comments regarding the limitations of our study are acknowledged in the article, it seems our statements summarizing the results of the study were too strong for many of our readers. This study has a sample size that is unable to detect a real, moderate difference in efficacy, and Drs. Donahue and Sternberg are correct in asserting that the study is underpowered. Our aim was simply to report early data from our study, and clinicians should keep the limitations of this study in mind when reading the article and contemplating changes in practice patterns.

In addition, the statement “failure to show a difference” (as stated in the Discussion) is not tantamount to stating that the two treatments are equally efficacious, and it is important for readers understand this distinction. We look forward to results from the Comparisons of age-related macular degeneration treatments trial to build our knowledge on this important topic further. Until then, we hope that clinicians who treat age-related macular degeneration find our results thought provoking.

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

Jan 17, 2017 | Posted by in OPHTHALMOLOGY | Comments Off on Reply

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access