• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

日常生活威胁流行病学研究中的科学标准。

Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies of the menace of daily life.

作者信息

Feinstein A R

机构信息

Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT 06510.

出版信息

Science. 1988 Dec 2;242(4883):1257-63. doi: 10.1126/science.3057627.

DOI:10.1126/science.3057627
PMID:3057627
Abstract

Many substances used in daily life, such as coffee, alcohol, and pharmaceutical treatment for hypertension, have been accused of "menace" in causing cancer or other major diseases. Although some of the accusations have subsequently been refuted or withdrawn, they have usually been based on statistical associations in epidemiologic studies that could not be done with the customary experimental methods of science. With these epidemiologic methods, however, the fundamental scientific standards used to specify hypotheses and groups, get high-quality data, analyze attributable actions, and avoid detection bias may also be omitted. Despite peer-review approval, the current methods need substantial improvement to produce trustworthy scientific evidence.

摘要

许多日常生活中使用的物质,如咖啡、酒精以及治疗高血压的药物,都被指责在引发癌症或其他重大疾病方面具有“威胁性”。尽管其中一些指责后来被反驳或撤回,但它们通常是基于流行病学研究中的统计关联,而这些研究无法用科学的常规实验方法进行。然而,使用这些流行病学方法时,用于明确假设和分组、获取高质量数据、分析可归因行为以及避免检测偏差的基本科学标准也可能被忽略。尽管经过同行评审批准,但目前的方法仍需要大幅改进才能产生可靠的科学证据。

相似文献

1
Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies of the menace of daily life.日常生活威胁流行病学研究中的科学标准。
Science. 1988 Dec 2;242(4883):1257-63. doi: 10.1126/science.3057627.
2
Scientific standards of criticism: a reaction to "Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies of the menace of daily life," by A.R. Feinstein.批判性的科学标准:对A.R. 范斯坦所著《日常生活威胁流行病学研究中的科学标准》的回应
Epidemiology. 1990 Jan;1(1):78-83. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199001000-00017.
3
How trustworthy is epidemiologic research?流行病学研究的可信度如何?
Epidemiology. 1990 Jan;1(1):83-4. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199001000-00018.
4
Scientific paradigms and ethical problems in epidemiologic research.流行病学研究中的科学范式与伦理问题。
J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44 Suppl 1:119S-123S. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90186-d.
5
Scientific standards in epidemiologic studies.流行病学研究中的科学标准。
Epidemiology. 1990 Jan;1(1):85-6. doi: 10.1097/00001648-199001000-00019.
6
Double standards, scientific methods, and epidemiologic research.双重标准、科学方法与流行病学研究
N Engl J Med. 1982 Dec 23;307(26):1611-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198212233072604.
7
Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany.德国药品效益评估的程序和方法。
Eur J Health Econ. 2008 Nov;9 Suppl 1:5-29. doi: 10.1007/s10198-008-0122-5.
8
[Procedures and methods of benefit assessments for medicines in Germany].[德国药品效益评估的程序和方法]
Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008 Dec;133 Suppl 7:S225-46. doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1100954. Epub 2008 Nov 25.
9
[Scientific, practical and educational aspects of clinical epidemiology].[临床流行病学的科学、实践与教育层面]
Vestn Ross Akad Med Nauk. 2012(9):65-9.
10
Moving towards a standards-based methodological quality assessment scheme for clinical research.迈向基于标准的临床研究方法学质量评估方案。
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2019 Jun;17(2):72-73. doi: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000170.

引用本文的文献

1
The METRIC-framework for assessing data quality for trustworthy AI in medicine: a systematic review.用于评估医学中可信人工智能数据质量的METRIC框架:一项系统综述。
NPJ Digit Med. 2024 Aug 3;7(1):203. doi: 10.1038/s41746-024-01196-4.
2
Building Blocks Towards a Proportionate Chemicals Policy With a Focus on the Netherlands.构建注重荷兰的适度化学品政策的基石。
Dose Response. 2022 Apr 14;20(1):15593258221086475. doi: 10.1177/15593258221086475. eCollection 2022 Jan-Mar.
3
Is the replication crisis a base-rate fallacy?复制危机是否是基本比率谬误?
Theor Med Bioeth. 2021 Dec;42(5-6):233-243. doi: 10.1007/s11017-022-09561-8. Epub 2022 Feb 27.
4
The replication crisis in epidemiology: snowball, snow job, or winter solstice?流行病学中的复制危机:滚雪球、骗局还是冬至?
Curr Epidemiol Rep. 2018 Jun;5(2):175-183. doi: 10.1007/s40471-018-0148-x. Epub 2018 Apr 12.
5
Post-Modern Epidemiology: When Methods Meet Matter.后现代流行病学:方法与物质相遇之时。
Am J Epidemiol. 2019 Aug 1;188(8):1410-1419. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwz064.
6
How to understand and conduct evidence-based medicine.如何理解和实施循证医学。
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2016 Oct;69(5):435-445. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2016.69.5.435. Epub 2016 Sep 8.
7
Perspective: Randomized Controlled Trials Are Not a Panacea for Diet-Related Research.观点:随机对照试验并非饮食相关研究的万灵药。
Adv Nutr. 2016 May 16;7(3):423-32. doi: 10.3945/an.115.011023. Print 2016 May.
8
Demographic and practice characteristics of pathologists who enjoy breast tissue interpretation.喜欢乳腺组织判读的病理学家的人口统计学和执业特征。
Breast. 2015 Apr;24(2):107-11. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.10.003. Epub 2014 Dec 29.
9
Potential increased risk of cancer from commonly used medications: an umbrella review of meta-analyses.常用药物致癌风险增加:荟萃分析的伞式评价。
Ann Oncol. 2014 Jan;25(1):16-23. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdt372. Epub 2013 Dec 4.
10
Long-term strategy for the statistical design of a forest health monitoring system.森林健康监测系统的长期统计设计策略。
Environ Monit Assess. 1993 Sep;27(2):81-94. doi: 10.1007/BF00551347.