Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2007; all rights reserved.
Editorial |
Commentary: On ‘Quality in epidemiological research: should we be submitting papers before we have the results and submitting more hypothesis generating research?’
Departments of Epidemiology and Statistics, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.
E-mail: lesdomes@ucla.edu
Accepted 7 August 2007
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
Lawlor's excellent proposals to mitigate publication bias1 complements other ideas, such as (truly) blind review of completed studies by blanking-out study results. Nonetheless, despite my general agreement with Lawlor, I think certain conventional presumptions in the editorial are in error and have blinded discussants to important sources of publication bias.
Most authors write as if publication bias is chiefly about tendency to not publish null results. Studies linking products with hazards provide examples to the contrary, as in the Vioxx debacle (one
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Greenland Multiple comparisons and association selection in general epidemiology Int. J. Epidemiol., May 3, 2008; (2008) dyn064v1. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erratum Int. J. Epidemiol., December 1, 2007; 36(6): 1371 - 1371. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|