HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS REGISTER		Author Keyword(s) Vol Page [Advanced]

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Add article to my folders Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Lee, P N Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lee, P N Related Collections Environmental tobacco smoke

Response to E Yano and S Chapman

P. N. Lee Statistics and Computing Ltd, Sutton, Surrey, UK

Correspondence to:
PeterLee@pnlee.demon.co.uk

Keywords: lung cancer; environmental tobacco smoke; smoking misclassification

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Professor Eiji Yano raises a number of issues in his letter¹ which responded to my commentary² on his article³ about the Japanese spousal study, as does Chapman in his editorial.⁴ Here I reply to the main points raised.

Studies of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure and lung cancer commonly identify a group of self reported non-smoking women and then compare risk according to the smoking habits of the husband. If some true smokers are erroneously included among the female subjects, an apparent relationship of spousal smoking with lung cancer may be seen even when no true effect of ETS exists. This has been mathematically demonstrated (for example, Lee and Forey⁵), with attempts to correct for it made by major independent authoritative reviews of the evidence on passive smoking and lung cancer.^6–8 The magnitude of the bias depends (among other things) on the extent to which women who smoke are . . . [Full text of this article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E Yano Should a paper with erroneous interpretations based on invalid measurements be published? Tob. Control, December 1, 2005; 14(6): 431 - 432. [Full Text] [PDF]