Literature DB >> 3272133

A collection of 56 topics with contradictory results in case-control research.

L C Mayes1, R I Horwitz, A R Feinstein.   

Abstract

This research was done to learn more about the frequency and characteristics of conflicting research in case-control studies. In a survey of the epidemiological and medical literature, we found 56 topics in which the results of a case-control study were in conflict with the results from other studies of the same relationship. Cancer was the associated disease for 30 of the controversial topics. We suggest that much of the disagreement may occur because a set of rigorous scientific principles has not yet been accepted to guide the design or interpretation of case-control research. Consequently, the investigator's 'judgement' is the main precaution against scientific hazards and distortions in the validity of evidence. To correct this deficiency, we propose using the principles of an experimental trial to develop the scientific standards for case-control research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1988        PMID: 3272133     DOI: 10.1093/ije/17.3.680

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Epidemiol        ISSN: 0300-5771            Impact factor:   7.196


  11 in total

Review 1.  Sifting the evidence-what's wrong with significance tests?

Authors:  J A Sterne; G Davey Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-01-27

Review 2.  Design issues for drug epidemiology.

Authors:  A D McMahon; T M MacDonald
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.335

3.  Point-counterpoint. The triumph of the null hypothesis: epidemiology in an age of change.

Authors:  Wasim Maziak
Journal:  Int J Epidemiol       Date:  2008-12-17       Impact factor: 7.196

4.  The effects of storage time on the growth of bacterial flora in bottled drinking water.

Authors:  H Sefcová
Journal:  Cent Eur J Public Health       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 1.163

5.  Evaluating the impact of database heterogeneity on observational study results.

Authors:  David Madigan; Patrick B Ryan; Martijn Schuemie; Paul E Stang; J Marc Overhage; Abraham G Hartzema; Marc A Suchard; William DuMouchel; Jesse A Berlin
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2013-05-05       Impact factor: 4.897

6.  Does design matter? Systematic evaluation of the impact of analytical choices on effect estimates in observational studies.

Authors:  David Madigan; Patrick B Ryan; Martijn Schuemie
Journal:  Ther Adv Drug Saf       Date:  2013-04

7.  The replication crisis in epidemiology: snowball, snow job, or winter solstice?

Authors:  Timothy L Lash; Lindsay J Collin; Miriam E Van Dyke
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2018-04-12

8.  Interpreting observational studies: why empirical calibration is needed to correct p-values.

Authors:  Martijn J Schuemie; Patrick B Ryan; William DuMouchel; Marc A Suchard; David Madigan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Observational research, randomised trials, and two views of medical science.

Authors:  Jan P Vandenbroucke
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2008-03-11       Impact factor: 11.069

10.  Improving reproducibility by using high-throughput observational studies with empirical calibration.

Authors:  Martijn J Schuemie; Patrick B Ryan; George Hripcsak; David Madigan; Marc A Suchard
Journal:  Philos Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci       Date:  2018-09-13       Impact factor: 4.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.