Wider evidence needs to be interpretedBMJ 2003; 327 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7413.501-a (Published 28 August 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;327:501
- Julia Critchley, lecturer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
- 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 …
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
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