Search

In the environmental health literature, errors in interpreting studies or data are not infrequent. Many are of the Type II variety. Common solecisms of this type are: treating the criterion of p < 0.05 as a sacrament; demanding complete confounder control; arguing for the existence of phantom confounders; arguing that the effect size is trivial; building nonveridical models; arguing for no effect from inadequate sample size; demanding causal proof; arguing that causality is reversed; conducting a ballot of published studies. These are examined in this paper.

In the environmental health literature, errors in interpreting studies or data are not infrequent. Many are of the Type II variety. Common solecisms of this type are: treating the criterion of p [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents several letters to the editor concerning environmental health. Lead content in the teeth of children; Analysis on the factors affecting the high levels of lead in the teeth; Evaluation on the clinical preceptorship in occupational medicine for medical students.