Bracken Michael B
School of Public Health and Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Ann Epidemiol. 2009 Mar;19(3):220-4. doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2008.11.006.
There is growing concern among epidemiologists that most discovered associations are either inflated or false. The reasons for this concern have focused on methodological issues in the conduct and publication of epidemiologic research. This commentary suggests that another reason for discrepant findings may be that animal research is producing implausible hypotheses. Many animal studies are methodologically weak, and the animal literature is not systematically reviewed and synthesized. Moreover, most bodies of animal literature may be so heterogeneous that they can be used selectively to support the plausibility of almost any epidemiology study result. Epidemiologists themselves also do not consistently conduct systematic reviews of bodies of biological evidence which might point to sources of bias in an evidence base. Animal research will likely continue to provide the biological basis for epidemiological investigation, but substantial improvement is needed in how it is conducted and synthesized to improve the predictability of animal studies for the human condition.
流行病学家越来越担心，大多数已发现的关联要么被夸大，要么是假的。这种担忧的原因集中在流行病学研究的开展和发表中的方法学问题上。这篇评论表明，研究结果存在差异的另一个原因可能是动物研究产生了不合理的假设。许多动物研究在方法上存在缺陷，而且动物研究文献没有得到系统的综述和综合。此外，大多数动物研究文献可能非常杂乱，以至于可以被选择性地用来支持几乎任何流行病学研究结果的合理性。流行病学家自己也没有始终如一地对可能指出证据库中偏差来源的生物学证据进行系统综述。动物研究可能会继续为流行病学调查提供生物学基础，但在其开展和综合方式上需要大幅改进，以提高动物研究对人类情况的预测能力。
