Suppr超能文献

双重标准、科学方法与流行病学研究

Double standards, scientific methods, and epidemiologic research.

作者信息

Feinstein A R, Horwitz R I

出版信息

N Engl J Med. 1982 Dec 23;307(26):1611-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198212233072604.

Abstract

Because suspected noxious agents can seldom be tested experimentally in people, epidemiologic investigation of the causes of disease depends on observational procedures, of which the most prominent types are cohort and case-control studies. In these studies the compared agents cannot be assigned experimentally, but many other basic experimental principles that could be employed are often overlooked, including verification of quality and accuracy in raw data, avoidance of major biases in comparison, vigilance in checking for methodologic errors, and maintenance of a careful distinction between research data that generate hypotheses and the new data needed to test these hypotheses. The problems that result when these principles are overlooked can be alleviated if etiologic research is performed and evaluated with the same standards used in other branches of science.

摘要

由于可疑的有害因素很少能在人体上进行实验测试,疾病病因的流行病学调查依赖于观察程序,其中最主要的类型是队列研究和病例对照研究。在这些研究中,无法通过实验来分配所比较的因素,但许多其他可用的基本实验原则却常常被忽视,包括对原始数据质量和准确性的验证、避免比较中的重大偏差、警惕检查方法学错误,以及仔细区分产生假设的研究数据和检验这些假设所需的新数据。如果病因学研究按照其他科学分支所采用的相同标准进行实施和评估,那么忽视这些原则所导致的问题是可以得到缓解的。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验