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

Howard I. Morrison, PhD; Douglas Schaubel, MSc; Marie Desmeules, MSc; Donald T. Wigle, MD, PhD
Cancer Bureau, Health Canada Ottawa, Ontario

JAMA. 1996;276(15):1222.

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

In Reply.

—Dr Braun is correct in indicating the RR for coronary heart disease for the lowest folate level studied was statistically significant (P=.04) for women, but not for men. However, the test for trend was statistically significant for both men and women. Although stratum-specific RRs were higher for women compared with men, the 95% CIs around the point estimates for men and women overlapped. Moreover, a comparison of the sex-specific rate ratios is not the most appropriate means to assess interaction. To formally test the interaction of sex, folate, and coronary heart disease, we compared the goodness-of-fit of a model that incorporated this interaction with one that did not. The deviances were 581.76 and 584.53 for the "interaction" and "no-interaction" models, respectively. This difference can be assumed to follow a X² distribution with degrees of freedom equal to the difference in the number of independent parameters in the 2 . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

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