Skip to main content
Log in

Epidemiologic investigations

Care in conduct, care in analysis, and care in reporting

  • Guest Editorial
  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Conclusion

The lessons to be learned from considering why the stratified analysis of Table 1 may have been inappropriate are as follows: (1) In a prospective investigation, one must be concerned with the changing status of the individuals involved. Yet, in situations, biassed results could occur from attempts to take changing status into account. An alternative effect of changing status could be to change the interpretation of the results obtained. In any case, some minimal amount of information on changing status has to be collected. (2) For a prospective study, it can be important that the analysis take the passage of time into account. Not only may time in itself be having an effect, but the decreasing with time of the populations at risk has to be taken into account. (3) Heterogeneity of the study population must be considered, with the analysis made on more homogeneous strata. Whatever other bases are used for stratification, it is ordinarily essential for most disease processes, and particularly for cancer, to stratify according to initial age. Note that if we have stratified according to initial age, the fact that age thereafter changes can be ignored, as ages remain homogeneous within a stratum (but with certain assumptions, the analysis could be simplified so as to add together from all the initial-age strata the total person-years at risk at a particular age). (4) Making the analysis specific for the disease supposed to be related to the study factor law can increase chances of identifying associations between disease and the suspect factor, notwithstanding the diminution in the number of cases available for analysis. The conducting of a more specific analysis does not preclude also making an analysis for the broader disease category. (5) Next, it is essential that results be reported in such a way as to make clear just what was the nature of the statistical analysis and also to show up certain other features of the study. The nature of Hirayama's investigation was such that the only logical analysis that could have been made would have been along the lines I have indicated above. The absence of indications in Hirayama's report that he did such a logical analysis, e.g., his not stating what age groupings were made of nonsmoking wives, may have been just carelessness. On the other hand, it may reflect that Hirayama never did make an appropriate analysis and so missed his opportunity to present a persuasive case for the lung cancer effects of passive smoking. He should give it another try. (6) Finally, it is important to be suspicious. Things may not be what they seem. Ostensibly, Hirayama was working with a population of nonsmoking wives. Actually, he was working with a population of wives who reported themselves to be nonsmokers. The distinction is important and should influence our interpretation of the results.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Kornegay HR, Kastenbaum MA, Mantel N, Harris JE, Du-Mouchel WH, Macdonald EJ, Hirayama T (1981) Correspondence: Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer. Br Med J 283:914–917

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hirayama T (1981) Non-smoking wives of heavy smokers have a higher risk of lung cancer: a study from Japan. Brt Med J 282:183–185

    Google Scholar 

  3. Mantel N (1963) Chi-square tsts with one degree of freedom; extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. J Am Stat Assoc 58:690–700

    Google Scholar 

  4. Mantel N (1966) Evaluation of survival data and two new rank order statistics arising in its consideration. Cancer Chemother Rep 50:163–170

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Mantel N, Haenszel W (1959) Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease. J Natl Cancer Inst 22:719–748

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haenszel W, Shimkin MB, Mantel N (1958) A retrospective study of lung cancer in women. J Natl Cancer Inst 21:825–842

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

The “Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology” publishes in loose succession “Editorials” and “Guest Editorials” on current and/or controversial problems in experimental and clinical oncology. These contributions represent exclusively the personal opinion of the author. The Editors

Supported by grant RD-102 from the American Cancer Society and by grant CA-34096 from the National Cancer Institute

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mantel, N. Epidemiologic investigations. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol 105, 113–116 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00406920

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00406920

Navigation