International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:948-954
© International Epidemiological Association 2001
Point-Counterpoint |
False positive outcomes and design characteristics in occupational cancer epidemiology studies
Department of Epidemiology, University of Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Gerard GMH Swaen, Department of Epidemiology, University of Maastricht, PO Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands. E-mail: g.swaen{at}epid.unimaas.nl
Abstract
Background Recently there has been considerable debate about possible false positive study outcomes. Several well-known epidemiologists have expressed their concern and the possibility that epidemiological research may loose credibility with policy makers as well as the general public.
Methods We have identified 75 false positive studies and 150 true positive studies, all published reports and all epidemiological studies reporting results on substances or work processes generally recognized as being carcinogenic to humans. All studies were scored on a number of design characteristics and factors relating to the specificity of the research objective. These factors included type of study design, use of cancer registry data, adjustment for smoking and other factors, availability of exposure data, dose- and duration-effect relationship, magnitude of the reported relative risk, whether the study was considered a ‘fishing expedition', affiliation and country of the first author.
Results The strongest factor associated with the false positive or true positive study outcome was if the study had a specific a priori hypothesis. Fishing expeditions had an over threefold odds ratio of being false positive. Factors that decreased the odds ratio of a false positive outcome included observing a dose-effect relationship, adjusting for smoking and not using cancer registry data.
Conclusion The results of the analysis reported here clearly indicate that a study with a specific a priori study objective should be valued more highly in establishing a causal link between exposure and effect than a mere fishing expedition.
Keywords Epidemiology, false positive studies, methods, occupational cancer
Accepted 24 April 2001
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Boffetta, J. K. McLaughlin, C. La Vecchia, R. E. Tarone, L. Lipworth, and W. J. Blot False-Positive Results in Cancer Epidemiology: A Plea for Epistemological Modesty J Natl Cancer Inst, July 16, 2008; 100(14): 988 - 995. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. M. Swaen and L. G. Van Amelsvoort Authors' response to Commentaries on Outcomes in Occupational Cancer Epidemiology Int. J. Epidemiol., April 1, 2002; 31(2): 513 - 514. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. B Bracken Commentary: Toward systematic reviews in epidemiology Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2001; 30(5): 954 - 957. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A Savitz Commentary: Prior specification of hypotheses: cause or just a correlate of informative studies? Int. J. Epidemiol., October 1, 2001; 30(5): 957 - 958. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|