Dictionary of Ophthalmology, Michel Millodot, Daniel M. Laby. Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2002. Pages: 336. Price: 78. 00. ISBN 0-7506-4797-3. When I first began my optometry training, the overwhelming sentiment was that every student MUST own a copy of The Wills Eye Manual and the Merck Manual. Unfortunately, another “must have” was left off the list: a dictionary specifically for ophthalmology and optometry. At the time, none was appropriate. With the arrival of Michel Millodot and Daniel Laby's Dictionary of Ophthalmology, the void has been filled. This dictionary of common terms used today in optometry, ophthalmology, and vision science is extensive, but the definitions are straightforward, succinct, and easy to comprehend. The dictionary is full-sized, but lightweight and aesthetically pleasing. More than 6, 000 terms are bolded in an attractive Wedgwood blue, facilitating term-finding, because they are demarcated from their respective definitions. Although this dictionary contains terminology used often by ophthalmologists, optometrists, technicians, researchers, and everyone who has some knowledge of how of the eye works, this book will be most useful to the vision neophyte, especially students of optometry, ophthalmology, or vision science. This is not to detract from the benefits that can be gained by anyone using this dictionary, because there is such an abundance of terms and topics covered that I am certain that we would be hard-pressed to discover a person from one discipline who would be familiar with them all. For example, a clinician might only have a vague impression of the instruments used in vision research, and we certainly would not expect a researcher to be intimately familiar with the spectrum of eye conditions. Anyone would be able to augment their knowledge of the eye in one capacity or another. With that said, let's delve into Dictionary of Ophthalmology. The contents of the dictionary are organized in a rational order. It begins with a list of abbreviations, acronyms, and symbols that are utilized within the book, which nicely correlates to conventions to which most of us are used to. Next is a list of common prefixes and suffixes and their meanings, followed by examples of such. The authors have also included a short-list of some common terms found in this dictionary and their respective Greek and Latin origins, which I found highly interesting. What follows is a descriptive list of tables and their corresponding page numbers. Indeed, the 70 tables that were interspersed throughout the dictionary are nicely arranged in a non-complicated manner, and they would have been beneficial to me when preparing for Part I of the NBEO exams. I was also pleasantly surprised to find that there were many key formulas included, and these also would have been an invaluable tool for studying. My only complaint with regard to this is that it would have been convenient if the formulas had been referenced to page numbers as well. Both the color and black and white photographs used to showcase abnormal conditions of the eye were extremely helpful, and the diagrams used to illustrate concepts were simple and excellent. The familiar adage, a picture is worth a thousand words, is appropriate here because the pictures served to enhance my appreciation for the word or condition in question. One complaint about the dictionary though, is that after adapting to its convention of locating many definitions described by the term's noun followed by its adjective (as in Spanish), such as “pupil, Argyll Robertson” or “palsy, cerebral, ” I was somewhat confused to find that the definition for “palsy, Bell's” was actually under “Bell's palsy. ” To be fair, the terms are cross-referenced to each other and truthfully, the information that one can get out of it more than makes up for any inconvenience. One of the advantages of this dictionary is that it is in fact a dictionary. The dictionary is probably one of the earliest reference books we have ever been taught to use, and thus most everyone is familiar with its format. I can recall my mother's well-intentioned suggestion that I read Webster's dictionary to increase my vocabulary so as to score well on standardized tests. However, I remember more clearly my rebuff to such a recommendation, because I believed the idea to be silly and unfeasible. Never did I imagine that I would one day not only sit down and peruse through a dictionary, but would actually enjoy it as well! As I flipped through the pages of the Dictionary of Ophthalmology, I found myself drifting back to classes in optics, anatomy and physiology, pharmacology, systemic disease, and others. I have pleasantly discovered that much of what was imbibed from professors throughout the years has not been erased from memory, and this dictionary was also useful in introducing me to terms of which I was previously unaware. For example, some drug names used in the United States are favored by a different synonym in the United Kingdom. In addition, although definitions are placed with their American spellings throughout the dictionary, their British equivalents are also noted. I also found that the cross-references to other terms were helpful if I wanted to explore a subject further. Of course, I would not expect that many would actually attempt to read a dictionary, and the best thing about it is that I could obtain a definition for a term that I had never heard of before or a term that I had forgotten about quite quickly, serving as a preliminary place in which to research the topic even further. This would be advantageous for students or clinicians in a hurry to obtain a brief overview. This eye-related dictionary is an excellent reference guide packed with much information and belongs on everyone's bookshelf. It complements the student's and the professional's library well. While it may supply comprehensive definitions, provide wonderful diagrams and photographs, and offer appropriate clinical advice, this dictionary cannot cover any topic of interest comprehensively. There are just too many terms to be able to elaborate within its 316 pages. Nonetheless, the dictionary serves its purpose well: to simply define.
Quynh Duong (Tue,) studied this question.