ReviewAnnals of epidemiology2016
An argument for renewed focus on epidemiology for public health.
Review in Annals of epidemiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Incremental Propensity Score Effects for Time-fixed Exposures.Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2021Article
- Application of epidemiological findings to individuals.La Medicina del lavoro · 2020Article
- A matrix for bridging the epidemiology and risk assessment gap.Global epidemiology · 2019Article
- Which is the cart and which is the horse? Getting more out of cross-sectional epidemiological studies.Public health nutrition · 2019Article
- Target Validity and the Hierarchy of Study Designs.American journal of epidemiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAlthough epidemiology has an indispensable role in serving public health, the relative emphasis of applications of epidemiology often tend toward individual-level medicine over public health in terms of resources and impact.
methodsWe make distinctions between public health and medical applications of epidemiology to raise awareness among epidemiologists, many of whom came to the field with public health in mind. We discuss reasons for the overemphasis on medical epidemiology and suggest ways to counteract these incentives.
resultsPublic health epidemiology informs interventions that are applied to populations or that confer benefits beyond the individual, whereas medical epidemiology informs interventions that improve the health of treated individuals. Available resources, new biomedical technologies, and existing epidemiologic methods favor medical applications of epidemiology. Focus on public health impact and methods suited to answer public health questions can create better balance and promote population-level improvements in public health.
conclusionsBy deliberately reflecting on research motivations and long-term goals, we hope the distinctions presented here will facilitate critical discussion and a greater consciousness of our potential impact on both individual and population-level health. Renewed intentions towards public health can help epidemiologists navigate potential projects and ultimately contribute to an epidemiology of consequence.
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.