Responses

other Versions

PDF
Epiblepharon in congenital glaucoma: case–control study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Incorrect study design and statistical analysis
    • Carrie Huisingh, Statistician University of Alabama at Birmingham
    • Other Contributors:
      • Gerald McGwin, Jr., Professor

    We read with interest the recently published study by Kim et al, which the authors described as a cross-sectional, observational, case-control study. As a single study such a design is not possible since cross-sectional and case-control studies are two distinct types of study designs. The authors compared the percent with lower lid epiblepharon between those with and without congenital glaucoma and reported that controls were matched on age and date of outpatient visit to the cases, which would suggest this is a matched case-control study. However, the statistical analysis employed did not account for the matched nature of the study design and therefore was not appropriate. Statistical procedures that account for the matched nature of the study should have been employed. The authors are urged to conduct a reanalysis of their study, amending their interpretation as warranted.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.