Letter

Passive smoking

Wider evidence needs to be interpreted

BMJ 2003; 327 doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7413.501-a (Published 28 August 2003)
Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:501.2

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Julia Critchley, lecturer (juliac@liverpool.ac.uk)
  1. International Health Research Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA

    Editor–Enstrom and Kabat's analysis has several omissions.1 First they accept that most epidemiological studies have found positive but not statistically significant relationships between environmental tobacco smoke, coronary heart disease, and lung cancer, but then argue against meta-analysis to establish a causal relation. This is precisely where systematic reviews, and sometimes meta-analysis, show …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    BMJ most popular