Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Dear Editor,
I read the manuscript written by Taskın et al. [1] with great interest. The authors performed a randomized study comparing two types of osteotomy in rhinoplasty: piezoelectric and conventional osteotomy. They did not find a significant difference between these osteotomies. Although the authors stated their study is “double-blinded” in the abstract section, I do not agree with them.
In this study, 90 patients were randomized into two groups: conventional and piezoelectric osteotomy. The same surgeon did all operations. A blinded examiner evaluated the postoperative ecchymosis and edema of the patients. This is the only blinding in this study. That is why this study is not double blinded as stated in the abstract section. This situation is probably overlooked and needs to be corrected.
Reference
Taşkın Ü, Batmaz T, Erdil M, Aydın S, Yücebaş K (2017) The comparison of edema and ecchymosis after piezoelectric and conventional osteotomy in rhinoplasty. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 274(2):861–865
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.
Funding
This study was not funded.
Additional information
This comment refers to the article available at doi:10.1007/s00405-016-4306-9.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cagici, C.A. Comments on: “The comparison of edema and ecchymosis after piezoelectric and conventional osteotomy in rhinoplasty.”. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol 275, 637 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4509-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00405-017-4509-8