Evaluation of the presence of double‐organ bias in published randomised controlled dacryocystorhinostomy studies

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe aim of this study is to show whether journals pay attention to double‐organ bias in studies on dacryocystorhinostomy (DCR) treatment. Most statistical tests are based on the assumption that each data entry is independent of the other. However, we wanted to understand whether the eye, which is a double organ in the human body, is a cause of bias and whether sufficient attention has been paid to it in published articles.DesignA PubMed search was conducted between November 1997 and November 2021 in the field of ophthalmology and otolaryngology with the terms ‘dacryocystorhinostomy’ and the limitations of ‘people’ and ‘randomly controlled studies’. Publications containing DCR were searched. The publications published in the 15 journals with the highest impact were selected. The scope of the journal, the scope of the authors, the relevance of the articles, the presence of randomisation, the type of study (drug, endoscopic surgery, laser surgery and external surgery) and the statistical approach to bilateral organ bias were evaluated by two independent observers.Results and Main Outcome MeasuresA total of 83 publications were found by Pubmed search. Fifty‐six publications were included in the study. Double‐organ bias was present in 41% (n = 23) of the cases. Of the 23 biased publications, 46.4% were found to be in the Quartile 1 group. Quartile 4 journals showed bias in only four journals.ConclusionDouble‐organ bias can also be seen in journals with high impact factors and published in recent years. Journals may need to pay more attention to double‐organ bias in the publication acceptance process.