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?

Antoni Basinski, MD, PhD, CCFP; Martin Myers, MD, FRCPC
Toronto, Ontario

Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(7):902.

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

The arguments made by Klatsky and colleagues point to the fact that some studies are not readily categorized into distinct epidemiologic study designs. Their study¹ bears the hallmarks of a case-cohort design, but did not appear to have been analyzed as such.² While the study of Klatsky et al¹ did possess some elements of a cohort study, it is not "clearly a cohort study." It is worth noting that this group's earlier study,³ with a similar population, methods of ascertaining coffee drinking, subject follow-up, and identification of cases was categorized as a case-control study. The earlier study differed from the subsequent one only in the number and matching of control subjects to cases.

In fact, we did not omit the design of Klatsky et al¹ from our meta-analysis.⁴ In accordance with standard meta-analyses, all possible relevant studies were carefully considered and analyzed. Those that . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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