Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2008;65:368-370; doi:10.1136/oem.2007.034884
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
Reanalysis: lessons great and small
David Kriebel
Correspondence to:
David Kriebel, School of Health & Environment, University of Massachusetts Lowell, Lowell, Massachusetts 01854, USA; david_kriebel@uml.edu
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Debate and critique are fundamental to the scientific method. The closest scientists ever get to "proof" is the persistence of a hypothesis after repeated attempts to refute it. For this reason, free exchange of opinions about the interpretation of data is essential. In epidemiology, it can be useful to challenge a studys conclusions by conducting a reanalysis of the data, with new investigators starting from different assumptions and using different methods. Consistent findings can strengthen confidence in the conclusions, as in the Health Effects Institutes reanalysis of the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society air pollution studies.1 2 But reanalysis can also create confusion and impede scientific progress if it is not done in the service of impartial inquiry. After initial comments on an important reanalysis of a study of beryllium and lung cancer in this issue (see page 379), I will step back to consider broader themes . . . [Full text of this article]
Related Article
-
Adjustment for temporal confounders in a reanalysis of a case–control study of beryllium and lung cancer
- M K Schubauer-Berigan, J A Deddens, K Steenland, W T Sanderson, and M R Petersen
Occup. Environ. Med. 2008 65: 379-383.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
Terms and conditions relating to subscriptions purchased online ¦ Website terms and conditions ¦ Privacy policy
Copyright © 2008 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.