Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10432898›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of public health1999

Reassessing the role of epidemiology in public health.

D A Savitz, C Poole, W C Miller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of public health, 1999. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Causation in epidemiology.Journal of epidemiology and community health · 2001
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Getting political: racism and urban health.American journal of public health · 2008
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Science and social responsibility in public health.Environmental health perspectives · 2003
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

D A SavitzDepartment of Epidemiology, University of North Carolina School of Public Health, Chapel Hill 27599-7400, USA. davidvsavitz@unc.edu
C Poole
W C Miller

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This commentary examines the scope of epidemiology and delineates the role of epidemiology in relation to public health. Epidemiology is a science; public health is a mission that is implemented through societal action. The implications of this difference are considered, and the sufficiency of epidemiology for guiding public health is evaluated in relation to other scientific disciplines and nonscientific considerations. The authors conclude that epidemiology is not the basic science of public health but one of many contributors to guiding action. The need for public health decisions despite scientific uncertainty and the potential for epidemiologic certainty's failing to provide clear guidance to public health action emphasize the distinctiveness of these endeavors. Criticisms that epidemiology fails to solve major public health problems, such as tobacco use; that it overemphasizes methods; that it fails to meet the needs of public health practitioners; and that it isolates itself from public health ethics are unwarranted. However, epidemiology should focus on addressing issues that directly affect public health decisions and should clearly communicate information about such issues to public health workers. Public health is far more complex than merely applying epidemiology.

Indexed as

EpidemiologyPublic HealthEvidence-Based MedicineHealth PolicyHumansInterprofessional RelationsPolicy Making

Identifiers

PMID10432898
PMCPMC1508699

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.