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 ......
Correspondence |

Comparing Contact Lens and Refractive Surgery Risks

Oliver D. Schein, MD, MPH; Joanne Katz, ScD
Arch Ophthalmol. 2007;125(6):853-854. doi:10.1001/archopht.125.6.853-c.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


There is little doubt that the effectiveness and safety of laser-assisted in situ keratomileusis (LASIK) have improved during the past decade. However, the comparisons that Mathers et al1 drew in their letter to the Archives and the conclusions reached in comparing contact lens and LASIK safety are inadequate and misleading.

First, the assumption that a 1-year (or annualized) risk of ulcerative keratitis associated with contact lens wear can be extrapolated to estimate a 10- or 20-year risk by simply multiplying by 10 or 20 is almost certainly wrong. Imagine a 10-year contact lens wearing span for an individual. If he or she survives the first 2 years, for example, without developing a corneal ulcer, then the risk will certainly be less throughout the succeeding years. This individual is, by definition, a “survivor,” one whose underlying risk for disease is less than average. This notion is analogous to actuarial estimates of life expectancy. One's likelihood of living until age 85 years is much greater for those who have already lived until age 70 years than for those who are currently aged 25 years. Of course, the risk of ulcerative keratitis does not recede completely with time for an individual. There is some degree of underlying risk inherent to use of the device itself (and that risk is much less for daily compared with extended wear use), even for a subject who does not possess known risk factors.

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.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles