Acta Ophthalmologica

Erratum

Errata

This article corrects:

  1. Can the prevalence of open-angle glaucoma be estimated from a retrospective clinical material? A study on the west coast of Iceland Volume 83, Issue 5, 549–553, Article first published online: 29 July 2005

In Jóhannesson et al. (2005), the following error was published on page 550, 3rd column, 2nd paragraph, line 8:

“The diagnosis of manifest glaucoma was based on at least one of the following criteria:

  • 1 glaucomatous cupping of the optic disc (i.e. totally excavated optic disc, excavation to the disc margin, cup disc asymmetry of 0.2 or more between the eyes, vertical excavation ratio greater than horizontal or optic disc haemorrhage, and
  • 2 visual field defects consistent with glaucoma and not explicable on other grounds as judged by the ophthalmologist (GG). The minimum criterion for judging a visual field as glaucomatous was an elevated loss variance (>6 dB) in combination with a cluster of two or more abnormal (p < 0.005) points.”

This should have read:

“The diagnosis of manifest glaucoma was based on at least two of the following criteria:

  • 1 glaucomatous cupping of the optic disc (i.e. totally excavated optic disc, excavation to the disc margin, cup disc asymmetry of 0.2 or more between the eyes, vertical excavation ratio greater than horizontal or optic disc haemorrhage), and
  • 2 visual field defects consistent with glaucoma and not explicable on other grounds as judged by the ophthalmologist (GG). The minimum criterion for judging a visual field as glaucomatous was an elevated loss variance (>6 dB) in combination with a cluster of two or more abnormal (p < 0.005) points, and
  • 3 progression of glaucomatous cupping or repeatable visual field defects or clinically deemed clear-cut glaucoma.”

Ancillary