advertisement
Editorial IGR 3-2
Dear Reader,
'Terror' is the Latin word for fear or horror. Terrores iacere means to terrify or to menace to throw terror. 'Terreur' in French means fear or a fear-inducing government (based on fear). 'Semer la terreur' means to sow fear. As you sow, so will you harvest. Terrorism is caused by fear and causes fear. The following is what we wrote to the Editorial Board of IGR after the September 11th violence:
'IGR would like to be a symbol for worldwide cooperation and friendship among professionals with the same focus. As a worldwide group, we were shocked by the recent act of terrorism. This is not just an act against the USA, it is a threat to us all wherever we are. New York and Washington have always been close, and are now even closer. It happened next door. We are one in our feelings of sadness and one in our resolute determination that terror is not going to cause us to deviate from our goal: to live a life in a civilization where wisdom, peace, and love lead the way. We are united in our personal and professional friendship. These are not just phrases. We make it work.'
The present issue of IGR considers conflicts of interest, target pressure, reports
on several meetings of the participating societies, and presents, as always, the
Editor's Selection, with contributions from a variety of experts. The reader will
find comments by Shields on epidemiology, by Liu, Patil, Polansky, Schwartz, and
Levin on basic studies concerning functioning of the trabecular meshwork and optic
nerve, by Lemij and Drexler on imaging techniques, by Kaufman on medical treatment,
and by Palmberg on surgical approaches.
Every now and then, IGR pays homage to fauna, flora, physics, and metaphysics. In
this issue, the metaphysics are scattered citations. You will find that there is
more knowing than science. Those colleagues who want to know more - and who does
not? - about IOP of the Taurotragus onyx and Dama mesopotamica should
certainly read the final page of the Editor's Selection. We can even find data on
tear production in these elegant animals. We never know when we will be called upon
to help our fellow beings.
We move on to Evidence Guided Management. The comment on Target Pressure in this issue of IGR is related to this subject. Evidence in daily practice may come from major studies and - just as important - from continuous analysis of our own results. This latter part is grossly underdeveloped. Should it not be part of every practice in this era of computer analysis?
Two papers are devoted to the continuous measurement of IOP: one through the sclera, the other in an IOL. We need accurate data on IOP behavior in the individual patient.
We predict that, in the near future, continuous IOP measurement will be part of glaucoma management. Its incorporation into teleglaucoma will change our subspecialty.
At a recent glaucoma meeting, the definition of neuroprotection came up once again. Protection against what? Against an aggressor. Elimination of the aggressor is not the same as protection against it. If there is no aggressor, there is nothing to protect against. Assuming that raised IOP is strongly related to glaucomatous damage, raised IOP could be called an aggressor. We can protect against this aggressor or eliminate/reduce it. IOP reduction should not be called neuroprotection.
Quality of life and quality of vision as outcome measures are en vogue, and rightly so. After all, that is what counts. The reader will find two papers related to Visual Function Questionnaires (see: 'Your Special Attention For' and the paper by Mangione, Abstract No. 368). Reading these papers is not just for researchers, they are equally as valid for the daily practice of glaucoma management.
Enjoy your reading!
Erik L. Greve
