Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (20)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Weed, D. L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Weed, D. L
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2000;29:387-390
© International Epidemiological Association 2000

Leading Article

Interpreting epidemiological evidence: how meta-analysis and causal inference methods are related

Douglas L Weed

Abstract

Interpreting observational epidemiological evidence can involve both the quantitative method of meta-analysis and the qualitative criteria-based method of causal inference. The relationships between these two methods are examined in terms of the capacity of meta-analysis to contribute to causal claims, with special emphasis on the most commonly used causal criteria: consistency, strength of association, dose-response, and plausibility. Although meta-analysis alone is not sufficient for making causal claims, it can provide a reproducible weighted average of the estimate of effect that seems better than the rules-of-thumb (e.g. majority rules and all-or-none) often used to assess consistency. A finding of statistical heterogeneity, however, need not preclude a conclusion of consistency (e.g. consistently greater than 1.0). For the criteria of strength of association and dose-response, meta-analysis provides more precise estimates, but the causal relevance of these estimates remains a matter of judgement. Finally, meta-analysis may be used to summarize evidence from biological, clinical, and social levels of knowledge, but combining evidence across levels is beyond its current capacity. Meta-analysis has a real but limited role in causal inference, adding to an understanding of some causal criteria. Meta-analysis may also point to sources of confounding or bias in its assessment of heterogeneity.

Keywords Causation, epidemiology, inference, meta-analysis, systematic reviews

Accepted 29 November 1999


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Am J EpidemiolHome page
G. E. Bekkering, R. J. Harris, S. Thomas, A.-M. B. Mayer, R. Beynon, A. R. Ness, R. M. Harbord, C. Bain, G. D. Smith, and J. A. C. Sterne
How Much of the Data Published in Observational Studies of the Association between Diet and Prostate or Bladder Cancer Is Usable for Meta-Analysis?
Am. J. Epidemiol., May 1, 2008; 167(9): 1017 - 1026.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Int J EpidemiolHome page
M. J Khoury, J. Little, M. Gwinn, and J. P. Ioannidis
On the synthesis and interpretation of consistent but weak gene-disease associations in the era of genome-wide association studies
Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2007; 36(2): 439 - 445.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Stat Methods Med ResHome page
D. A Bennett
Review of analytical methods for prospective cohort studies using time to event data: single studies and implications for meta-analysis
Statistical Methods in Medical Research, August 1, 2003; 12(4): 297 - 319.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Toxicol Ind HealthHome page
G. Mastrangelo, U. Fedeli, E. Fadda, G. Milan, and J. H Lange
Epidemiologic evidence of cancer risk in textile industry workers: a review and update
Toxicology and Industrial Health, May 1, 2002; 18(4): 171 - 181.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.