Download PDFPDF
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.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

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.