Cargando…

Methodological problems with population cancer studies: The forgotten confounding factors

Among clinical physicians it is the population study that is considered to be the “gold standard” of medical evidence concerning acceptable treatments. As new information comes to light concerning the many variables and confounding factors that can affect such studies, many older studies lose much o...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Blaylock, Russell L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26097772
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.157893
_version_ 1782374710308241408
author Blaylock, Russell L.
author_facet Blaylock, Russell L.
author_sort Blaylock, Russell L.
collection PubMed
description Among clinical physicians it is the population study that is considered to be the “gold standard” of medical evidence concerning acceptable treatments. As new information comes to light concerning the many variables and confounding factors that can affect such studies, many older studies lose much of their original impact. While newer population studies take into consideration a far greater number of confounding factors many are still omitted and a number of these omitted factors can have profound effects on interpretation and validity of the study. In this editorial, I will discuss some of the omitted confounding factors and demonstrate how they can alter the interpretation of these papers and their clinical application.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4455124
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44551242015-06-19 Methodological problems with population cancer studies: The forgotten confounding factors Blaylock, Russell L. Surg Neurol Int Editorial Among clinical physicians it is the population study that is considered to be the “gold standard” of medical evidence concerning acceptable treatments. As new information comes to light concerning the many variables and confounding factors that can affect such studies, many older studies lose much of their original impact. While newer population studies take into consideration a far greater number of confounding factors many are still omitted and a number of these omitted factors can have profound effects on interpretation and validity of the study. In this editorial, I will discuss some of the omitted confounding factors and demonstrate how they can alter the interpretation of these papers and their clinical application. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC4455124/ /pubmed/26097772 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.157893 Text en Copyright: © 2015 Blaylock RL. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Editorial
Blaylock, Russell L.
Methodological problems with population cancer studies: The forgotten confounding factors
title Methodological problems with population cancer studies: The forgotten confounding factors
title_full Methodological problems with population cancer studies: The forgotten confounding factors
title_fullStr Methodological problems with population cancer studies: The forgotten confounding factors
title_full_unstemmed Methodological problems with population cancer studies: The forgotten confounding factors
title_short Methodological problems with population cancer studies: The forgotten confounding factors
title_sort methodological problems with population cancer studies: the forgotten confounding factors
topic Editorial
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4455124/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26097772
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/2152-7806.157893
work_keys_str_mv AT blaylockrusselll methodologicalproblemswithpopulationcancerstudiestheforgottenconfoundingfactors