Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Correspondence highlights the need for thorough examination before relying on diagnostic tests to assess visual loss.
To the Editor.— Dr Kolder,¹in his discussion of a patient who suffered loss of vision following cataract surgery, correctly indicates the unlikelihood of the proffered diagnosis of multiple evanescent white dot syndrome. He also briefly lists a potpourri of entities that may have resulted in visual loss following a surgical procedure. If Dr Kolder had been less kind, he might have pointed out that a markedly restricted peripheral vision in,an eye with permanent loss of central vision is not compatible with the physical findings as given, specifically, a normal optic disc and a "dissipated" swollen retina. He also might have pointed out that a brain scan, electroretinogram, and fluorescein angiogram would have little likelihood of showing an abnormality that was not suspected on the basis of a careful ophthalmologic examination. It seems to me that this problem is another illustration of how readily physicians discard the use
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Michael Rosenberg (1990) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: