{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024770642201834864, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01743119266055046, 'mean_word_length': 5.532934131736527, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Similarity of familial exudative vitreoretinopathy and retinopathy of prematurity.

To the Editor. —I read with interest the article in the December 1981Archivesby Brockhurst et al entitled "Pathologic Findings in Familial Exudative Vitreoretinopathy" (99:2143-2146), but find myself in disagreement with several of their conclusions. Their observations regarding the absence of myopia in familial exudative vitreoretinopathy (FEVR) are not consistent with reported refractive errors in pedigrees thus far reported (Table 1). Moreover, when these data are compared with the data reported by Kushner 1 regarding regressed retinopathy of prematurity in children, the usefulness of refractive error for differential diagnosis diminishes (Table 2). It would seem that both the mean and range of refractive errors in FEVR and retinopathy of prematurity are more similar than dissimilar. Criswick and Schepens 2 believed, as did Gow and Oliver, 3 that vitreous contraction was the primary event in this disorder. The authors mirror these sentiments. However, the recent observations of Ober et al