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...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
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 |