advertisement
In this manuscript, Racette et al. (545) compare visual field properties in both healthy eyes of 760 participants of African descent (AD) and European descent (ED). They reported that people of AD had significantly worse performance than individuals of ED on standard automated perimetry (SAP), short wavelength automated perimetry (SWAP) and Humphrey Matrix frequency doubling technology perimetry (Matrix FDT), particularly for the Matrix FDT. In general, this investigation appears to have been carefully performed and the analysis and interpretation of results seems to be quite thorough.
What is the basis for differences among various ethnic groups?
However, it is not clear why a correction for multiple comparisons was not performed. These findings are consistent with previous reports of varying structural properties of the visual system and other clinical measures in Hispanic/Latinos, Asians, African Americans and other ethnic and cultural groups. It is important to determine individual differences among various groups of people, but this also generates many questions such as: (1) What is the basis for differences among various groups? (2) Do the differences among groups have any clinical significance or predictive value? (3) Is a separate normative database needed for each group? (4) Is there a better way of characterizing a person's ancestry other than self-report? (5) Are some groups more susceptible to disease than other groups?
Do the differences among ethnic groups have any clinical significance or predictive value?Longitudinal studies, genetic specification and related investigations will help to provide some answers to these questions. In my opinion, this investigation characterizes many studies in which the attempt to conduct a detailed evaluation seeking answers will also generate many additional questions and add more complexity to the problem being assessed. Hopefully, additional efforts directed towards this and related issues will help to clarify matters in the future.