• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Annals of epidemiology >Meta-analysis and causal inference: a case study of benzene and non-hodgkin lymphoma.
【24h】

Meta-analysis and causal inference: a case study of benzene and non-hodgkin lymphoma.

机译：荟萃分析和因果推论：以苯和非霍奇金淋巴瘤为例。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Meta-analysis is an important method in the practice of occupational epidemiology, with a legitimate, but limited role to play in causal inference. Meta-analysis provides an assessment of consistency-one of several classic causal criteria-through tests of heterogeneity and an assessment of differences across studies. It can also provide an increase in the precision of effect estimates, including the precision of dose response relationships. Causal inference, however, involves much more: a complete assessment of the classic causal criteria, for example. Causal claims, therefore, should not emerge from meta-analyses as such. A recent meta-analysis of epidemiological studies of benzene exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), however, does exactly that. Using studies from a previous narrative review in which the authors made no causal claim, the same authors performed a meta-analysis and concluded that it represented new evidence that benzene causes NHL. Despite a lack of consistency (i.e., significant heterogeneity), weak associations, no evidence of dose-response, no effort to provide an assessment of biological plausibility, and no new epidemiological evidence, the authors, nevertheless, changed their conclusion from association to causation. By using case study as an illustrative platform, this commentary provides cautionary and critical comments about the use of meta-analysis and causal inference in occupational epidemiology.
机译：荟萃分析是职业流行病学实践中的一种重要方法，在因果推理中起着合法但有限的作用。荟萃分析通过异质性测试提供一致性评估，这是几种经典因果标准之一，并且可以评估研究之间的差异。它还可以提高效果估计的精度，包括剂量反应关系的精度。但是，因果推理涉及的内容更多：例如，对经典因果标准的完整评估。因此，因果主张不应从荟萃分析中得出。然而，最近关于苯暴露和非霍奇金淋巴瘤（NHL）的流行病学研究的荟萃分析确实做到了这一点。使用先前的叙述性评论中的作者没有提出因果关系的研究，同一作者进行了荟萃分析，得出的结论是苯代表了NHL的新证据。尽管缺乏一致性（即显着的异质性），关联弱，没有剂量反应的证据，没有对生物学似真性进行评估的努力，也没有新的流行病学证据，但是作者将他们的结论从关联变成了因果关系。 。通过使用案例研究作为说明性平台，此评论为在职业流行病学中使用荟萃分析和因果推断提供了警告和批判性评论。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号