Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23171877›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2012

Stories from the evolution of guidelines for causal inference in epidemiologic associations: 1953-1965.

Henry Blackburn, Darwin Labarthe

Abstract readHistorical Article
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. The use of observational research to inform clinical practice.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Henry BlackburnDivision of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, 1300 South Second Street, Minneapolis, MN 55454, USA. black002@umn.edu
Darwin Labarthe

Funding

Research in Cardiovascular Disease Prevention: A HistoryG13LM008214 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI BLACKBURN, HENRY W. · 2004 to 2005
$138k
NLM NIH HHS 5G13-LM008214-02NLM NIH HHS G13 LM008214
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Guidelines for causal inference in epidemiologic associations were a major contribution to modern epidemiologic analysis in the 1960s. This story recounts dramatic elements in a series of exchanges leading to their formulation and effective use in the 1964 Report of the Advisory Committee to the US Surgeon General on Smoking and Health, the landmark report which concluded that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. The opening salvo was precipitated by Ancel Keys' presentation of an ecologic correlation between diet and cardiac death, which was vigorously criticized in an article by Jacob Yerushalmy calling for "proper handling" of bias and confounding in observational evidence. The dispute demonstrated a need for guidelines for causal inference and set off their serial refinement among US thinkers. Less well documented parallel efforts went on in the United Kingdom, leading to the criteria that Bradford Hill presented in his 1965 President's Address to the Royal Society of Medicine. Here the authors recount experiences with some of the principals involved in development of these criteria and note the omission from both classic reports of proper attribution to those who helped create the guidelines. They also present direct, if unsatisfying, evidence about those particular lapses.

Indexed as

CausalityEpidemiologic MethodsGuidelines as TopicData Interpretation, StatisticalEpidemiologyHistory, 20th CenturyHumansLung NeoplasmsSmokingUnited KingdomUnited States

Identifiers

PMID23171877
PMCPMC3521480

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.