This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

David Atkins, MD
Seattle, Wash

Arch Intern Med. 1991;151(9):1882.

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

To the Editor. —

The recent article by Dupont and Page¹ provides a muchneeded review of the studies of estrogens and breast cancer. However, meta-analysis of epidemiologic research faces different problems from those faced by the analysis of data from clinical trials. Evaluating the methods of observational studies, to decide which results to include, presents the first obstacle. Random assignment, placebo control subjects, and blinded assessment have become standard elements of a well-conducted clinical trial. In contrast, there is less agreement over what constitutes acceptable methods in epidemiologic research.² The authors chose to exclude few studies, despite substantial differences among the studies in the selection of subjects and control subjects, the definitions of exposure, and the control of potential confounders. The amount and the direction of bias introduced by these differences is controversial. The authors found no "obvious" connection between methodology and risk estimates. However, bias in individual . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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