This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine  • Ophthalmology, Other  • Public Health  • World Health  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In reply

I thank Drs Tso, Abbott, and Spivey for their interest in my recent editorial¹ and greatly appreciate their comments and clarifications regarding the international guidelines being developed by the International Council of Ophthalmology (ICO). Perhaps my editorial and the comments by Dr Tso and colleagues serve to highlight the confusion in the direction or purpose of such guidelines as perceived by the general ophthalmological community and by someone such as myself who is (albeit remotely) involved in the ICO guidelines. In my editorial, I sought to portray the reality of ophthalmology in a non–English-speaking, non–English-reading country with a different genetic and cultural population of patients from the still mainly English-speaking audience of the ARCHIVES who may not be aware of the magnitude of such differences.

In the end, I believe that we are all in agreement that the ICO guidelines (as all guidelines should be) are a work-in-progress, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Annabelle A. Okada, MD

Correspondence: Dr Okada, Department of Ophthalmology, Kyorin University School of Medicine, 6-20-2 Shinkawa Mitaka-Shi, Tokyo 181-8611, Japan (aokada@po.iijnet.or.jp).

RELATED ARTICLE

International Guidelines: All for One and One for All?
Mark O. M. Tso, Richard Abbott, and Bruce Spivey
Arch Ophthalmol. 2004;122(7):1090-1091.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT