BMJ  2007;335:840-841 (27 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.39374.404502.BE

Letters

Fluoridation

Interpreting the Newcastle fluoride bioavailability study

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

We are surprised that the chief dental officer and chief medical officer for England in their full response to Cheng et al consider that the Newcastle study on bioavailability "contributed to a better understanding of the health effects of water fluoridation."^{1 2} The researchers themselves urged caution when interpreting the results.³ It is disappointing that such senior public health officials make the error of assuming that "no statistically significant differences in bioavailability between artificially and naturally fluoridated water" has any meaning when the study was too small to find scientifically important differences.

Interestingly, despite the small size, the Newcastle study did report a significant difference in the relative bioavailability of fluoride in drinking water (plasma Fp%) at three hours (27%) and eight hours (36%) follow-up (mean difference in Fp% (0-8)=35, 95% confidence interval 5.9 to 64.5).³ However, the authors removed one of the 20 data points, which they determined was an . . . [Full text of this article]

¹ IIR Division, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton SO16 6YD, ² Health Services Research, University of York, York YO10 5DD

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

Related Article

Government is setting aside £42m for water fluoridation

Owen Dyer
BMJ 2008 336: 353. [Extract] [Full Text]