This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on Web of Science (1)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	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 However, Temple's third suggestion—that epidemiologic studies with relative risks of 2.0 or less not be published until replicated in a different environment—is alarming.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]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Meta-analysis and Epidemiologic Studies in Drug Development and Postmarketing Surveillance
Robert Temple
JAMA. 1999;281(9):841-844.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT