Skip Navigation


IJE Advance Access originally published online on March 11, 2005
International Journal of Epidemiology 2005 34(2):244-246; doi:10.1093/ije/dyh330
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
34/2/244    most recent
dyh330v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Merchant, A. T
Right arrow Articles by Yusuf, S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Merchant, A. T
Right arrow Articles by Yusuf, S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the International Epidemiological Association © The Author 2005; all rights reserved.

Commentary

Commentary: Insights from cross-population studies: Rose revisited

Anwar T Merchant, Sonia S Anand and Salim Yusuf*

Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Hamilton Health Sciences and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

* Correspondence: Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences and McMaster University, Hamilton General Hospital, 237 Barton Street East, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada L8L 2X2. E-mail: yusufs@mcmaster.ca

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

Using data across different populations (ecological studies) to understand disease aetiology is uncommon, partly because it is difficult to establish standardized measurements of exposure or risk factors and obtain reliable and comparable outcome statistics, but also because such studies are difficult to establish. However, an even bigger obstacle has been the theoretical concerns (some may even say prejudices) held in relation to ecological studies. The argument goes that unknown or unmeasured factors that cosegregate with the exposure of interest may confound the relationship, or worse that the specific exposure being studied may be only a surrogate marker of exposure (something that tracks with the exposure variable but has no direct or indirect link to the processes that lead to disease). Although these . . . [Full Text of this Article]


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