Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Commentary to Gebel 2012: A quantitative review should apply meta-analytical methods—and this applies also to quantitative toxicological reviews

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Published:
Archives of Toxicology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Gebel (In Arch Toxicol 87(5):923–924, 2013) replied to my Letter to the Editor (Morfeld in Arch Toxicol 87(5):921, 2013) in which I criticized the quantitative review of inhalation rat studies on the association of granular biopersistent dust exposures and lung cancer risk (Gebel in Arch Toxicol 86(7):995–1007, 2012). My methodological comments were not understood. The Editors of the Archives invited me to detail and substantiate my criticism. The main issues are as follows: (1) A quantitative summary of the study results was performed without weighting for precision of the single studies (the published unweighted synthesis is potentially biased). (2) No heterogeneity assessment was performed before combining the findings (it is unclear whether overall summaries are sensible). (3) Correlation coefficients were used (correlations are distorted estimates of exposure–response and misleading). (4) An incomplete input data table was published (no transparent reporting, no replication possible for the reader). The quantitative synthesis by Gebel (In Arch Toxicol 86(7):995–1007, 2012) does not fulfil the usual requirements of a scientific quantitative review and should be replaced by an appropriate meta-analysis.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Blettner M, Sauerbrei W, Schlehofer B, Scheuchenpflug T, Friedenreich C (1999) Traditional reviews, meta-analyses and pooled analyses in epidemiology. Int J Epidemiol 28(1):1–9

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Freedman DA, Petitti DB, Robins JM (2004) On the efficacy of screening for breast cancer. Int J Epidemiol 33(1):43–55

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gebel T (2012) Small difference in carcinogenic potency between GBP nanomaterials and GBP micromaterials. Arch Toxicol 86(7):995–1007

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gebel T (2013) Response to Morfeld (2013): commentary to Gebel 2012: a quantitative review should apply meta-analytical methods. Arch Toxicol 87(5):923–924. doi:10.1007/s00204-013-1050-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Greenland S (1987) Quantitative methods in the review of epidemiologic literature. Epidemiol Rev 9:1–30

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Hoboken, USA http://handbook.cochrane.org/. Accessed 16 April 2013

  • Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morfeld P (2013) Commentary to Gebel 2012: a quantitative review should apply meta-analytical methods. Arch Toxicol 87(5):921. doi:10.1007/s00204-013-1049-x

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL (2008) Modern epidemiology, 3rd edn. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutton AJ, Abrams KR, Jones DR, Sheldon TA, Son F (2000) Methods for meta-analysis in medical research. Wiley, West Sussex, England

    Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia (2013) Lineare regression. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineare_Regression. Accessed 16 April 2013

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for Occupational Epidemiology and Risk Assessment of Evonik Industries AG, Rellinghauser Straße 1-11, 45128, Essen, Germany

    Peter Morfeld

  2. Institute and Policlinic for Occupational Medicine, Environmental Medicine and Prevention, Research, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany

    Peter Morfeld

Authors
  1. Peter Morfeld
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Morfeld.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morfeld, P. Commentary to Gebel 2012: A quantitative review should apply meta-analytical methods—and this applies also to quantitative toxicological reviews. Arch Toxicol 87, 2023–2025 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-013-1138-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-013-1138-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation