The endlessly gray and dreary spring in the East this year has only one benefit: At least we didn't waste good weather in our annual slog through the ARVO website.

We love ARVO; we learn so much; we get some small appreciation of the vital work that ARVO members do.

We hate ARVO; we can't possibly report on all the work we review; weeks and weekends inside, staring at a computer screen is not the best preparation for sudden exposure to the Ft. Lauderdale sun in early May.

I'd be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the guidance of our medical editors, who slog right along with us through abstract upon abstract. For the final product, please see page 25.

One last tribute to ARVO I thought I'd make this year is to studies that just didn't fit anywhere else and may be of interest to no one but me.

 • A Yale group, concerned that doctors in training are vulnerable to pharmaceutical promotion, though they may be unaware of it, surveyed 40 ophthalmology residency programs. Among their mixed findings: 86 percent of respondents rate interactions with the  pharmaceutical industry as "just right." Almost half of trainees have guidelines or policies in their program regarding such interactions, but only 29 percent have been trained in this area. While most trainees believe they are not easily influenced by pharmaceutical promotions, the majority have changed behavior based on promotion. (Abstract #2415)

 • University of Pittsburgh researchers surveyed 192 patients with eye problems on their use, perceived benefits and motivation for using complementary and alternative medicine (vitamins, herbal remedies and dietary supplements). If your patients are like those in the study, more than half of them use some form of CAM, and almost as many say they use it for non-serious medical conditions, health promotion or disease prevention. (Abstract #2416)

Finally, we've been careful—you can decide whether excessively so or not—in pointing out which studies had commercial support. A group from the University of Chicago and Northeastern Ohio Universities looked at the impact of such support. (Abstract #2388) Their verdict: No statistically significant difference between the commercially and non-commercially funded studies. Like last year, there was a higher rate of statistically significant outcomes in non-commercially funded drug studies. On the whole, though, it appears that commercial funding did not exert undue influence on the reporting of results at the 2006 meeting. Let's hope for the same in 2007.

Now, relax and enjoy the sun.