Bias versus causality: interpreting recent evidence of association between endometriosis and ovarian cancer
Bias versus causality: interpreting recent evidence of association between endometriosis and ovarian cancer
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.11.180
复制
发表时间：
2007-09-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Vercellini, Paolo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Vigano, Paola;Somigliana, Edgardo;Vercellini, Paolo
目的：为了确定因果关系与偏倚是否可以解释子宫内膜异位症和卵巢癌的关系，设计：我们采用了Austin Bradford Hill提出的9个标准，这些标准仍然是因果推断的基础里程碑。通过系统审查检索到的论文中的所有参考文献来收集其他报告。主要结果指标：检查子宫内膜异位症与卵巢癌之间的因果关系。结果（S）：根据目前的分析，尚未达到强度标准。四项标准的数据不足或混杂（生物梯度，生物相容性，类比，连贯性），并满足四个标准（一致性、时间性、特异性、动物模型中的实验证据）。子宫内膜异位症和卵巢癌的特定组织类型之间的因果关系应该得到承认，但所观察到的低风险程度与异位子宫内膜经历恶性转化的频率与其在位对应物相似的观点一致。
Objective: To establish whether causality versus biases may explain the association of endometriosis and ovarian cancer.Design: We employ the nine criteria proposed by Austin Bradford Hill, which still stand as foundation milestones for causal inference.Setting: University-based clinic.Patient(s): None.Intervention(s): Search strategies included online searching of the MEDLINE database and hand searching of relevant publications and reviews. Additional reports were collected by systematically reviewing all references from retrieved papers.Main Outcome Measure(s): Examination of the causal relationship between endometriosis and ovarian cancer.Result(S): Based on the present analysis, the criterion of strength has not been fulfilled. There were insufficient or mixed data for four criteria (biological gradient, biological plausibility, analogy, coherence), and four criteria were fulfilled (consistency, temporality, specificity, experimental evidence in animal model).Conclusion(S): A causal relationship between endometriosis and specific histotypes of ovarian cancer should be recognized, but the low magnitude of the risk observed is consistent with the view that ectopic endometrium undergoes malignant transformation with a frequency similar to its eutopic counterpart.