Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Re: “Prospective randomized comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation”
  1. B J Winn1,
  2. S D Smith1,
  3. D D Garcia2,
  4. A Jian-Amadi3,
  5. B S Sires3,4
  1. 1Department of Ophthalmology, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA
  2. 2Southwestern Eye Center, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
  3. 3Department of Ophthalmology, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
  4. 4Allure Facial Laser Center and Medispa, Kirkland, Washington, USA
  1. Correspondence to B J Winn, Harkness Eye Institute, Columbia University Medical Center, 635 W 165th Street, PO Box EI 106, New York, New York, USA; bjw15{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

We read with interest “Prospective randomised comparison of external dacryocystorhinostomy with and without silicone intubation” by Saiju et al.1 The investigators should be congratulated on their effort in performing a prospective clinical trial to address this important question. There are, however, issues that we believe limit the ability to draw definitive conclusions from their study. First, we have concerns about the randomisation process at the time of surgery scheduling that resulted in unbalanced treatment groups because of early withdrawal. This process of patient self-selection can result in unidentified differences between treatment groups that may have affected their results. Second, a χ …

View Full Text


  • Linked articles 173286.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles