Abstract

We dispute the claim made by Dubbelman and colleagues [J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 22, 1216 (2005); this issue] that “incorrect statistical methods” were used to compare the MRI and Scheimpflug data. We clearly stated that we “analyzed the covariance of regression lines” in the results section. We believe the analysis of covariance of regression lines, as shown by Snedecor and Cochran [Statistical Methods (Iowa State U. Press, Ames, Iowa, 1989)] is as “correct” as the “straightforward statistical comparison” of confidence intervals employed by Dubbelman and colleagues; however; our statistical method has the benefit of being more precise and stringent than a simple comparison of confidence intervals.

© 2005 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Citation lists with outbound citation links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription

Metrics

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article level metrics are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription