...
首页> 外文期刊>Archives of Toxicology >Comment on Slama R, Cyrys J, Herbarth O, Wichmann H-E, Heinrich J. (2009) A further plea for rigorous science and explicit disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Morfeld P. (2009) A plea for rigorous and honest science-false positive findings and biased presentations in epidemiological studies. Archives of Toxicology 83:105-106.
【24h】

Comment on Slama R, Cyrys J, Herbarth O, Wichmann H-E, Heinrich J. (2009) A further plea for rigorous science and explicit disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. Morfeld P. (2009) A plea for rigorous and honest science-false positive findings and biased presentations in epidemiological studies. Archives of Toxicology 83:105-106.

机译:对Slama R,Cyrys J,Herbarth O,Wichmann H-E和Heinrich J.的评论(2009)进一步要求严格的科学和明确披露潜在的利益冲突。 Morfeld P.(2009)呼吁进行严格和诚实的科学-流行病学研究中出现假阳性结果和偏颇的陈述。毒理学档案83:105-106。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Slama et al. (2009) criticized my guest editorial in this journal (Morfeld 2009). In the editorial, I used the publication of Slama et al. 2007 as an example to demonstrate a biased analysis and presentation of an epidemiological study. Slama et al. (2007) investigated the possible link between traffic-related atmospheric pollutants and birth weight in offsprings. They presented results (significantly elevated odds ratios) from a binary analysis (birth weight dichotomized at 3,000 g) whereas their a priori choice was a continuous analysis (Slama et al. 2007, p. 1284). They changed the analysis strategy because in the continuous analysis birth weight "...did not turn out to be associated with air pollution (data not shown)" (Slama et al. 2007, p. 1284). Slama et al. (2007) mentioned this important fact of no association in only one single sentence within the methods section. It was neither picked up again in the results section or discussion section nor in the abstract of the paper. Furthermore, they reported in the abstract only results on the effect of PM 2.5 levels and on PM 2.5 absorbance from models that did not adjust for other pollutants simultaneously, thus exaggerating the odds ratios and their statistical significance additionally in comparison to the multi-pollutant modeling results shown in Table 3 (Slama et al. 2007). Therefore, I argued in the guest editorial that the reporting of results in Slama et al. (2007) was biased.
机译:Slama等。 (2009年)批评了我在该杂志上的客座社论(Morfeld,2009年)。在社论中,我使用了Slama等的出版物。以2007年为例,说明流行病学研究的偏向分析和介绍。 Slama等。 (2007)研究了与交通有关的大气污染物与后代出生体重之间的可能联系。他们提供了二元分析(出生体重在3,000 g时二等分)的结果(优势比显着提高),而他们的先验选择是连续分析(Slama et al。2007,p。1284)。他们改变了分析策略,因为在连续分析中,出生体重“……未证明与空气污染有关(数据未显示)”(Slama等,2007,p.1284)。 Slama等。 (2007年)提到了这一重要事实,即方法部分中只有一个句子没有关联。结果部分或讨论部分或本文的摘要中都没有再次提到它。此外,他们在摘要中仅报告了PM 2.5含量的影响和未同时针对其他污染物进行调整的模型对PM 2.5吸收的影响,因此与多污染物建模相比,夸大了优势比及其统计意义。结果示于表3(Slama等,2007)。因此,我在客座社论中认为,Slama等人报告结果。 (2007)有偏见。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
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