We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editorial |

The Standardization of Uveitis Nomenclature Project The Future Is Here

Annabelle A. Okada, MD; Douglas A. Jabs, MD, MBA
JAMA Ophthalmol. 2013;131(6):787-789. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2013.1596.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


In 1996, an editorial in the Archives of Ophthalmology entitled “Uveitis and the Tower of Babel” bemoaned the inconsistent use of vocabulary to describe even quite common cases of uveitis.1 Members of the American Uveitis Society were given clinical vignettes and informally surveyed for this editorial1; they revealed a striking difference in opinion regarding whether a particular term was appropriate to describe a hypothetical clinical situation. For example, for the first vignette, members were asked if the term pars planitis should be used in reference to a 25-year-old woman with bilateral findings of anterior chamber cells, vitreous cells, and “snowbanks” over the inferior pars plana. Of those surveyed, 33% thought that pars planitis was the preferred term, 39% thought that it was an acceptable term, and 28% thought that it was an unacceptable term. One can imagine that if uveitis specialists around the world were surveyed in a similar fashion, the discord would be even greater. This state of “discommunication” is by no means unique to uveitis. However, when one considers that each uveitic disease is of relatively low prevalence, that disease prevalences differ greatly depending on the part of the world, and that typical features of the same disease differ depending on a patient's ethnicity, perhaps there was little opportunity for a common language of communication to spontaneously develop.



Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

0 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles