Dexamethasone intravitreous implant vs bevacizumab for central retinal vein occlusion related macular oedema: A prospective randomized comparison—Response

Abstract

We would like to thank Li et al for their interest in our work and for their valuable comments. We would like to confirm that in our study, the best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) of our patients were measured at a distance of 2 m using Snellen visual acuity charts. This visual acuity data was converted to a logarithmic scale (logMAR) only to have a better statistical analysis. We would like also to confirm that we included patients with macular oedema (MO) due to central retinal vein occlusion (CRVO) with BCVA range from 0.3 logMAR to counting fingers. However, as mentioned in the text (p. 653, last line under the title “Primary outcome measures”) and in figure 1 legend (p. 653), the visual acuity presented on vertical axis of the bar chart of Figure 1 is in decimals. We thought that visual acuities in decimals on the bar chart will be more informative and more presentable to the reader than logMARs. That means that at 6 months the mean BCVA for each group was 0.6 in decimals not 0.6 in logMARs, which is corresponding to 6/9 in Snellen and 0.2 logMARs, as mentioned in the text (p. 653), and therefore there was improvement of BCVAs, not deterioration. Hence, we would like to confirm to Li et al that the data presented in the original article is correct. 2 In our study, we found that both treatment methods provided equal and effective improvement of patients’ BCVA throughout the 6-month study period. There was statistically significant improvement of BCVA in both treatment groups between baseline and each study visit with corresponding central foveal thickness changes. Thus, we believe that the both intravitreal dexamethasone implant and bevacizumab injections have equal and comparable efficacy and safety in the treatment of MO secondary to CRVO.