Two Surgeon General's reports on smoking and cancer: a historical investigation of the practice of causal inference

BACKGROUND: The epidemiologic literature is replete with conceptual discussions about causal inference, but little is known about how the causal criteria are applied in public health practice. The criteria for causal inference in use today by epidemiologists have been shaped substantially by their use over time in reports of the U.S. Surgeon General on Smoking and Health. METHODS: We reviewed two classic reports on smoking and health from expert committees convened by the US Surgeon General, in 1964 and 1982, in order to evaluate and contrast how the committees applied causal criteria to the available evidence for the different cancer sites at different time periods. We focus on the evidence for four cancer sites in particular that received detailed reviews in the reports: lung, larynx, esophagus and bladder. RESULTS: We found that strength of association and coherence (especially dose-response, biological plausibility and epidemiologic sense) appeared to carry the most weight; consistency carried less weight, and temporality and specificity were apparently not applied at all in some cases. No causal claim was made for associations with a summary odds ratio of less than 3.0. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the causal criteria as described in textbooks and the Surgeon General reports can have variable interpretations and applications in practice. While the authors of these reports may have considered evidential factors that they did not explicitly cite, such lack of transparency of methods undermines the purpose of the causal criteria to promote objective, evidence-based decision making. Further empirical study and critical examination of the process by which causal conclusions are reached can play an important role in advancing the practice of epidemiology by helping public health scientists to better understand the practice of causal inference

Evidence-based mapping of design heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis: a systematic review and evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND: Assessment of design heterogeneity conducted prior to meta-analysis is infrequently reported; it is often presented post hoc to explain statistical heterogeneity. However, design heterogeneity determines the mix of included studies and how they are analyzed in a meta-analysis, which in turn can importantly influence the results. The goal of this work is to introduce ways to improve the assessment and reporting of design heterogeneity prior to statistical summarization of epidemiologic studies. METHODS: In this paper, we use an assessment of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSB) and type 2 diabetes (T2D) as an example to show how a technique called ‘evidence mapping’ can be used to organize studies and evaluate design heterogeneity prior to meta-analysis.. Employing a systematic and reproducible approach, we evaluated the following elements across 11 selected cohort studies: variation in definitions of SSB, T2D, and co-variables, design features and population characteristics associated with specific definitions of SSB, and diversity in modeling strategies. RESULTS: Evidence mapping strategies effectively organized complex data and clearly depicted design heterogeneity. For example, across 11 studies of SSB and T2D, 7 measured diet only once (with 7 to 16 years of disease follow-up), 5 included primarily low SSB consumers, and 3 defined the study variable (SSB) as consumption of either sugar or artificially-sweetened beverages. This exercise also identified diversity in analysis strategies, such as adjustment for 11 to 17 co-variables and a large degree of fluctuation in SSB-T2D risk estimates depending on variables selected for multivariable models (2 to 95% change in the risk estimate from the age-adjusted model). CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analysis seeks to understand heterogeneity in addition to computing a summary risk estimate. This strategy effectively documents design heterogeneity, thus improving the practice of meta-analysis by aiding in: 1) protocol and analysis planning, 2) transparent reporting of differences in study designs, and 3) interpretation of pooled estimates. We recommend expanding the practice of meta-analysis reporting to include a table that summarizes design heterogeneity. This would provide readers with more evidence to interpret the summary risk estimates

Integrating the Totality of Food and Nutrition Evidence for Public Health Decision Making and Communication

The interpretation and integration of epidemiological studies detecting weak associations (RR < 2) with data from other study designs (e.g., animal models and human intervention trials) is both challenging and vital for making science-based dietary recommendations in the nutrition and food safety communities. The 2008 ILSI North America “Decision-Making for Recommendations and Communication Based on Totality of Food-Related Research” workshop provided an overview of epidemiological methods, and case-study examples of how weak associations have been incorporated into decision making for nutritional recommendations. Based on the workshop presentations and dialogue among the participants, three clear strategies were provided for the use of weak associations in informing nutritional recommendations for optimal health. First, enable more effective integration of data from all sources through the use of genetic and nutritional biomarkers; second, minimize the risk of bias and confounding through the adoption of rigorous quality-control standards, greater emphasis on the replication of study results, and better integration of results from independent studies, perhaps using adaptive study designs and Bayesian meta-analysis methods; and third, emphasize more effective and truthful communication to the public about the evolving understanding of the often complex relationship between nutrition, lifestyle, and optimal health

Resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity: the three Rs of partnership in sport for public health research

This paper explores the dynamics of research–policy–practice (RPP) partnerships in sport. Such partnerships, involving a diverse range of groups, have emerged as a response to: (1) a contemporary political prioritisation in the use of sport for health and wellbeing and (2) a parallel requirement for robust evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. A conceptual framework for understanding such RPP partnerships is proposed and discussed in relation to three overlapping characteristics; resourcefulness, reciprocity and reflexivity. The paper concludes that understanding these three Rs of RPP partnerships is a way to demythologise the role of sport in public health and present theoretically informed analyses about processes of knowledge production, dissemination and use. It is a conceptual framework which might also further an understanding of, and make public, issues concerning the legitimation of some forms of evidence over others, and potentially maximise the impact of the co-production of knowledge about sport for public health and wellbeing

The role of red and processed meat in colorectal cancer development : a perspective

Peer reviewe