You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 127 No. 3, March 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related articles
 •Related letter
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Pediatric Ophthalmology
 •Ophthalmological Disorders, Other
 •Pediatrics
 •Pediatrics, Other
 •Drug Therapy
 •Drug Therapy, Other
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

COMMENTS AND OPINIONS
Potential Bias in Amblyopia Treatment Study

Philip Lempert, MD

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Repka et al1 observed that "patients who participated had better amblyopic eye visual acuity at the 2-year outcome than patients who did not participate," and identified this as indicating a potential selection bias.

Only 169 of 419 (40%) initial subjects completed the study, while 60% dropped out. Treatment effectiveness could be overestimated because patients who were not improving might have chosen to discontinue participation.

Another form of selection bias is suggested by the relative paucity and variability of the subjects recruited. Amblyopia is a very common condition, and the investigators were actively involved with pediatric ophthalmology. It is likely that many hundreds or thousands of new patients were seen at the clinical sites during the recruitment period. Yet, 13 clinical sites recruited 3 or fewer subjects. Conversely, 7 sites contributed 20 or more subjects. The paucity of subjects and asymmetry of patient enrollment among sites suggests the . . . [Full Text of this Article]


AUTHOR INFORMATION


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

A Randomized Trial of Atropine vs Patching for Treatment of Moderate Amblyopia: Follow-up at Age 10 Years
Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(8):1039-1044.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Clinical Profile of Moderate Amblyopia in Children Younger Than 7 Years
The Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2002;120(3):281-287.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTER

Potential Bias in Amblyopia Treatment Study—Reply
Michael X. Repka, Raymond T. Kraker, Roy W. Beck, Jonathan M. Holmes, Susan A. Cotter, Eileen E. Birch, William F. Astle, Danielle L. Chandler, Joost Felius, Robert W. Arnold, D. Robbins Tien, Stephen R. Glaser, and for the Pediatric Eye Disease Investigator Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(3):349.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  






HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.