Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 25, Issue 10, pp 671–675 | Cite as

Etiologic study vis-à-vis intervention study

  • O. S. Miettinen
Commentary

Abstract

Understanding of the logic-dictated essence of the etiologic study, and similarly that of the intervention-study, in the advancement of the knowledge-base of medicine, remains incomplete. Viewing experimental intervention-studies (‘clinical trials’) as paradigmatic for etiologic studies—necessarily non-experimental—has been wrongheaded. This misunderstanding continues to impede understanding of the essence of what logic dictates to be the etiologic study, adduced decades ago but still commonly confused with the essence of the (seriously malformed) ‘case–control’ study. Correct understanding of the essence of the etiologic study would pave the way to improved understanding of the intervention study, notably as to how prognostic probability functions could be derived from the data now routinely produced in clinical trials. This paradigm reversal, too, has been previously proposed, but its understanding has remained fogged by wanting understanding of the etiologic study.

Keywords

Case–control study Clinical trial Cohort study Cox regression Logistic regression 

References

  1. 1.
    Moore FE. Committee on design and analysis of studies. Amer J Public Health. 1960;50:10–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Porta M, Greenland S, Last JM, editors. A dictionary of epidemiology. 5th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hill AB. Observation and experiment. NEJM. 1953;248:995–1001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Miettinen OS. Estimability and estimation in case-referent studies. Amer J Epidemiol. 1976;103:226–31.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Miettinen OS. Theoretical epidemiology. Principles of occurrence research in medicine. New York: Wiley; 1985. p. 320.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Samet JM. Epidemiology: more than etiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19:719–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bolúmar F, Porta M. Epidemiologic methods: beyond clinical medicine, beyond epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19:733–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Miettinen OS. Proportion of disease caused or prevented by a given exposure, trait or intervention. Am J Epidemiol. 1974;99:325–32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miettinen OS. Theoretical developments. In: Holland WW, Olsen J, Florey C, du V, editors. The development of modern epidemiology. Personal reports from those who were there. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Miettinen OS. Up from clinical epidemiology and EBM. Dordrecht: Springer; 2010.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Miettinen OS. Epidemiology: Quo vadis? Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19:713–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miettinen OS. Commentaries on epidemiology: Quo vadis? Eur J Epidemiol. 2005;20:11–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hanley J, Miettinen OS. Fitting smooth-in-time prognostic risk functions via logistic regression. Internat J Biostat. 2009;5:1–23.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miettinen OS. Book review. In: Porta M (Editor), Greenland S, Last JM (Associate Editors). A dictionary of epidemiology. A handbook sponsored by the I.E.A. Eur J Epidemiol 2008; 23: 813-7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Smith R. The trouble with medical journals. London: Royal Society of Medicine Press, 2006; p. 46.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Miettinen OS. Screening for a cancer: a sad chapter in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol. 2008;23:647–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, and Department of Medicine, Faculty of MedicineMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of MedicineWeill Medical College, Cornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations