English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

We read with interest the article “Role of Ultra-widefield Imaging in Eales’ Disease: A Case Series” by Agarwal et al. We would like to congratulate the authors for their nice work and make few observations. We noted few discrepancies between the results and conclusions. Results revealed disease activity in 10/57 (17.5%), 20/57 (35%), and 29/57 (50.9%) patient visits with clinical examination, UWF Optos imaging, and wide-field FFA respectively. However, authors conclude that “ultra-widefield imaging is a very helpful tool in the management of a patient with Eales’disease.” This is in spite of the fact that widefield FA resulted in better documentation in 56% of the patient visits in their series. Widefield FA detected significantly more number of active vasculitis as compared to Optos, and alteration in the treatment plan was done in 18/57 (31.6%) patient visits based on FA.

Letter to the Editor: Reply to Manuscript “Role of Ultra-widefield Imaging in Eales’ Disease: A Case Series”