Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOR
In our review of meta-analyses of observational studies we
pointed out that all these are susceptible to all the biases inherent
in observational research1 and that it is easy to generate
seemingly plausible explanations for findings of observational studies
that are in fact spurious.2 Birkett's critique of one of
our examples illustrates these points.3
| Table Removed (Available Only in the Full Text) |
Cappuccio et al showed a weak inverse association between calcium intake and blood pressure.4 Stratified analysis showed that the studies in which food frequency questionnaires were used showed a much greater association than the studies in which diet history or 24 hour dietary recall were used (figure, top). Cappuccio et al argued that this could be expected since food frequency questionnaires assess habitual diet and long term calcium intake was likely to be the important factor influencing blood pressure.
Birkett showed that for one study included in the meta-analysis
standardised regression coefficients (the difference in
Read all Rapid Responses