You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
PostScript
Letter
Re: A prospective observational study of techniques to remove corneal foreign body in the emergency department
  1. Abdullah Ilhan1,
  2. Ahmet Tas2,
  3. Salih Altun3,
  4. Fatih C Gundogan3
  1. 1Opthalmology Department, Erzurum Military Hospital, Erzurum, Turkey
  2. 2Opthalmology Department, Agri Military Hospital, Agri, Turkey
  3. 3Ophthalmology Department, Gulhane Military Medical School, Ankara, Turkey
  1. Correspondence to Dr Ahmet TAS, Opthalmology Department, Agri Military Hospital, Agri 04000, Turkey; ahmettas2015{at}gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.1136/emermed-2014-204429

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Dear Editor,

    We have read the article entitled ‘A prospective observational study of techniques to remove corneal foreign body in the emergency department.’ by Quirke et al1 with interest. We congratulate the authors that they called attention to an important issue in the emergency settings.

    The study aimed to compare the slit-lamp-aided technique of superficial corneal foreign body (FB) removal with direct removal without the aid of a slit-lamp biomicroscopy performed by emergency physicians. In …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors I certify that neither this manuscript nor one with substantially similar content under my authorship has been published or is being considered for publication elsewhere. I have access to any data upon which the manuscript is based and will provide such data upon request to the editors or their assignees. All authors agree to allow me to correspond with the editorial office, to review the uncorrected proof copy of the manuscript and to make decisions regarding release of information in the manuscript. All authors took part in the conception, design, intellectual content and manuscript preparation.

    • Competing interests None.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    Linked Articles