This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on ISI (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In his commentary on epidemiologic studies and meta-analysis in drug development and surveillance, Dr Temple¹ suggests that medical journals impose 3 higher standards on epidemiologic studies. Two of these should invoke little concern. Who is not in favor of any scientist doing a better job describing methods and their limitations? However, Temple's third suggestion—that epidemiologic studies with relative risks of 2.0 or less not be published until replicated in a different environment—is alarming.

There are 3 reasons that mandating replication prior to publication is a bad idea. First, doing so flies in the face of the central ethical obligation of epidemiologists to report their findings to society, peers, and study participants.² Second, it trades one known bias—publication bias—for others presumed but unknown. Third, it would be a logistical nightmare.

Each deserves elaboration, but equally compelling is a fourth reason, emerging from the idea that singles out epidemiologic . . . [Full Text of this Article]