Letters

Authors' reply

BMJ 1994; 308 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6921.136a (Published 08 January 1994) Cite this as: BMJ 1994;308:136
  1. M Farrer,
  2. F L Game,
  3. P H Winocour,
  4. M F Laker,
  5. K G M M Alberti,
  6. C J Albers,
  7. P C Adams,
  8. H A W Neil
  1. Cardiothoracic Centre, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne NE7 7DN
  2. Departments of Clinical Biochemistry and Medicine, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, Newcastle upon NE1 4HH
  3. Department of Cardiology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP
  4. Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Oxford, Oxford OX2 6HE

    EDITOR, - Andrew C G Uprichard and Linda Shurzinske are correct to point out potential limitations in epidemiological studies of performing analyses that were not prospectively identified when subjects were recruited. The information from such analyses in the Framingham study and others shows, however, that their argument should not deter epidemiologists when the population(s) studied can provide useful insights into testing as well as generating hypotheses.

    Our study was in response to a previous study of subjects with no known coronary artery disease which found a fivefold increase in the proportion of subjects with impaired …

    View Full Text

    Sign in

    Log in through your institution

    Free trial

    Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
    Sign up for a free trial

    Subscribe