ReviewBMC public health2014
The science of epidemiology and the methods needed for public health assessments: a review of epidemiology textbooks.
Review in BMC public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Point: Reconciling Epidemiology's Aspirations and Capabilities.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Defining Core Competencies for Epidemiologists in Academic Settings to Tackle Tomorrow's Health Research Challenges: A Structured, Multinational Effort.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Article
- Review
- Participatory epidemiology: the contribution of participatory research to epidemiology.Emerging themes in epidemiology · 2017Review
- The use of potential years of life lost for monitoring premature mortality from chronic diseases: Canadian perspectives.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2016Article
- [Prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis and associated environmental and behavioral factors in children from a rural population].Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesEpidemiology is often described as 'the science of public health'. Here we aim to assess the extent that epidemiological methods, as covered in contemporary standard textbooks, provide tools that can assess the relative magnitude of public health problems and can be used to help rank and assess public health priorities. STUDY
designNarrative literature review.
methodsThirty textbooks were grouped into three categories; pure, extended or applied epidemiology, were reviewed with attention to the ways the discipline is characterised and the nature of the analytical methods described.
resultsPure texts tend to present a strict hierarchy of methods with those metrics deemed to best serve aetiological inquiry at the top. Extended and applied texts employ broader definitions of epidemiology but in most cases, the metrics described are also those used in aetiological inquiry and may not be optimal for capturing the consequences and social importance of injuries and disease onsets.
conclusionsThe primary scientific purpose of epidemiology, even amongst 'applied' textbooks, is aetiological inquiry. Authors do not readily extend to methods suitable for assessing public health problems and priorities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.