More evidence that the treatment should not necessarily be withheld
- D K Newman,
- M P Snead,
- D W Flanagan,
- J D Scott
- Registrar in ophthalmology Senior registrar in ophthalmology Consultant ophthalmologist Consultant ophthalmologist Department of Ophthalmology, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ
EDITOR,—Helen Ward and John S Yudkin rightly draw attention to the lack of evidence that thrombolytic treatment for acute myocardial infarction may precipitate vitreous haemorrhage in patients with diabetic retinopathy.1 Two additional points strengthen their argument that the treatment should not necessarily be withheld in such patients.
Firstly, consideration of the pathophysiology of diabetic vitreous haemorrhage …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012