Talk:The Eye and Retina
Dua's Layer is unconfirmed and controversial
References to Dua's Layer should either be removed entirely, or should be indicated as unconfirmed and controversial.
See for example:
Ophthalmology Volume 121, Issue 5, Pages e24–e25, May 2014 Re: Dua et al.: Human corneal anatomy redefined: a novel pre-Descemet layer (Dua's layer) (Ophthalmology 2013;120:1778–85)
Hamish D. McKee, FRANZCO, Luciane C.D. Irion, FRCPath, PhD, Fiona M. Carley, FRCOphth, Arun K. Brahma, MD, Mohammad R. Jafarinasab, MD, Mohsen Rahmati-Kamel, MD, Mozhgan R. Kanavi, MD, Sepehr Feizi, MD Published Online: February 20, 2014 DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ophtha.2013.12.021 Abstract Full Text References We read the recent claim of the discovery of a new corneal layer by Dua et al with incredulity.1 The existence of pre-Descemet stromal tissue remaining after pneumodissection is well known. Their further investigation of this pre-Descemet stroma confirms that it is stroma, and not a new corneal layer.
Fuller text: http://www.anz-cornea-society.org/styled-3/styled-6/files/anz-cornea-society-2014-abstracts.pdf (where incidentally they also say that Dua's Layer is also an inappropriate name, and that if it needs that kind of name, which they doubt, it should be called the "Feizi's stroma".Tlhslobus (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2014 (EDT)
I may eventually amend it myself (probably removing all references to it), but I'd prefer to first give the original editor the chance to amend it as they see fit. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2014 (EDT)