- Email: [email protected]
Suggested terminology: Ultrasound in ophthalmology
632
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
and even here due allowance must be made for slight differences among authorities. It has been pointed out many times that ques tions involving judgment often do not have a clean-cut yes or no answer and yet are valid and useful in separating examinees, if these questions are carefully item-analyzed after they have been given. The Examination Committee has on numerous occasions had to change its answers from wrong to right on the basis of the item-analysis. Usually such paradoxical situations are due to se mantics, but not always. Dr. Lebensohn suggests that the questions should be tested on a presumably qualified group, such as the American Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology. The Board does just that. Each question submitted is gone over carefully by the Ex amination Committee and each year the whole committee takes the examination. As one member has put it, "I can't understand why so many members of this committee disagree with my answers." I hope that Dr. Lebensohn and anyone else who reads this brief note will dedicate a few spare hours of his time to making up questions which are valid (produce raw scores which spread out candidates) and send them to the American Board. But—do not expect that the answers that you may consider unequivocal yes or no will be unequivocally agreed to. Francis H. Adler Philadelphia, Pennsylvania SUGGESTED TERMINOLOGY: ULTRASOUND I N OPHTHALMOLOGY
Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology: In order to reduce the confusion develop ing in the field, a group of researchers work ing in ultrasound in ophthalmology met re cently to standardize terminology. Present were Drs. Peter H. Ballen, Gilbert Baum, Nathaniel R. Bronson, D. Jackson Coleman, Brian J. Curtin, Kurt A. Gitter, Jack W. Passmore, Robert Penner and Lov K. Sarin.
APRIL, 1968
Also represented by ballot were other work ers in the United States and abroad. This committee recommends the following terms: 1. Time Amplitude Ultrasqnography (TAU) in place of A scan or A mode. 2. Scanned Intensity Modulated Ultrasonography (SIMU) in place of B scan or B mode. 3. Transmitter pulse in place of initial echo, crystal artifact, etc. 4. Depth rather than range. 5. Sensitivity describing overall system response, including transducers. Also to be for the control which varies this. 6. Ultrasonogram rather than echogram. Nathaniel R. Bronson II Southhampton, Long Island, New York BOOK
REVIEWS
Edited by Gavin Paterson, S. J. H. Miller and Gillian D. Paterson. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1967. Clothbound, 320 pages, 119 figures in black and white. Price: $14.00. This book is the result of a joint ophthal mology-pharmacology glaucoma symposium held in England last year. It represents an effort at joining research experts in ophthal mology and pharmacology in the hope that both fields might derive benefit from the material and ideas presented. Three major topics are discussed: the actions and uses of sympathomimetic drugs in glaucoma, the ef fects of parasympathomimetics on intraocu lar pressure, and the alterations in aqueous dynamics produced by topical corticosteroids. As is often the case at such meetings, con siderable benefit is derived from the infor mal discussions and questions which follow the formal presentations. Some effort is made to retain this feature for the reader by including a discussion section at the conclu sion of each topic. The book provides an excellent and de tailed review of the pharmacology of drugs DRUG MECHANISMS IN GLAUCOMA.
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OPHTHALMOLOGY
and even here due allowance must be made for slight differences among authorities. It has been pointed out many times that ques tions involving judgment often do not have a clean-cut yes or no answer and yet are valid and useful in separating examinees, if these questions are carefully item-analyzed after they have been given. The Examination Committee has on numerous occasions had to change its answers from wrong to right on the basis of the item-analysis. Usually such paradoxical situations are due to se mantics, but not always. Dr. Lebensohn suggests that the questions should be tested on a presumably qualified group, such as the American Association of University Professors of Ophthalmology. The Board does just that. Each question submitted is gone over carefully by the Ex amination Committee and each year the whole committee takes the examination. As one member has put it, "I can't understand why so many members of this committee disagree with my answers." I hope that Dr. Lebensohn and anyone else who reads this brief note will dedicate a few spare hours of his time to making up questions which are valid (produce raw scores which spread out candidates) and send them to the American Board. But—do not expect that the answers that you may consider unequivocal yes or no will be unequivocally agreed to. Francis H. Adler Philadelphia, Pennsylvania SUGGESTED TERMINOLOGY: ULTRASOUND I N OPHTHALMOLOGY
Editor, American Journal of Ophthalmology: In order to reduce the confusion develop ing in the field, a group of researchers work ing in ultrasound in ophthalmology met re cently to standardize terminology. Present were Drs. Peter H. Ballen, Gilbert Baum, Nathaniel R. Bronson, D. Jackson Coleman, Brian J. Curtin, Kurt A. Gitter, Jack W. Passmore, Robert Penner and Lov K. Sarin.
APRIL, 1968
Also represented by ballot were other work ers in the United States and abroad. This committee recommends the following terms: 1. Time Amplitude Ultrasqnography (TAU) in place of A scan or A mode. 2. Scanned Intensity Modulated Ultrasonography (SIMU) in place of B scan or B mode. 3. Transmitter pulse in place of initial echo, crystal artifact, etc. 4. Depth rather than range. 5. Sensitivity describing overall system response, including transducers. Also to be for the control which varies this. 6. Ultrasonogram rather than echogram. Nathaniel R. Bronson II Southhampton, Long Island, New York BOOK
REVIEWS
Edited by Gavin Paterson, S. J. H. Miller and Gillian D. Paterson. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1967. Clothbound, 320 pages, 119 figures in black and white. Price: $14.00. This book is the result of a joint ophthal mology-pharmacology glaucoma symposium held in England last year. It represents an effort at joining research experts in ophthal mology and pharmacology in the hope that both fields might derive benefit from the material and ideas presented. Three major topics are discussed: the actions and uses of sympathomimetic drugs in glaucoma, the ef fects of parasympathomimetics on intraocu lar pressure, and the alterations in aqueous dynamics produced by topical corticosteroids. As is often the case at such meetings, con siderable benefit is derived from the infor mal discussions and questions which follow the formal presentations. Some effort is made to retain this feature for the reader by including a discussion section at the conclu sion of each topic. The book provides an excellent and de tailed review of the pharmacology of drugs DRUG MECHANISMS IN GLAUCOMA.