Safeguards for research using large scale DNA collections
Safeguards for research using large scale DNA collections
复制标题
使用大规模 DNA 收集进行研究的保障措施
DOI：
10.1136/bmj.322.7285.551
复制
发表时间：
2001
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
L. Henriksen
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
H. O. Birk;L. Henriksen
编者——在丹麦男性死亡率队列研究中，Schnohr 等人比较了 96 名在 1976 年 8 月和 1981 年 3 月两次检查中报告自己是慢跑者的男性与 4562 名在两次检查中均不慢跑的男性的死亡率。1 作者从 1976 年 8 月到 1998 年跟踪了该队列，发现慢跑者的相对死亡风险为 0.39 （95% 置信区间为 0.19 至 0.73）。
慢跑的定义是参与者而不是作者。该论文不包括有关男性在检查时或检查期间和检查后锻炼的方式或程度的信息。目前尚不清楚这些人是否同意慢跑的共同定义。
在1976年8月和1981年3月进行的两次检查中，4658名20至79岁的男性中分别有217名（4.7％）和202名（4.3％）报告说他们是慢跑者。这些数字低得惊人。根据丹麦国家公共卫生研究所 1994 年进行的一项研究，16 岁以上男性中有 59.5% 进行锻炼或认为自己身体活跃。即使在 67 岁以上的男性中，也有 55.4% 的人锻炼身体或认为自己积极锻炼身体。2
文件中没有提供死亡率数据。由于慢跑者人数较少，因此相对死亡风险可能对死亡率的微小差异很敏感，即使差异很大。
作者指出，他们的研究是观察性的，它控制了年龄，但没有控制生活方式的差异。健康的慢跑效应而不是慢跑本身可以解释死亡率的差异。
Editor—In their cohort study of mortality in Danish men, Schnohr et al compared the mortality in 96 men who reported that they were joggers at two examinations in 1976-8 and 1981-3 with that in 4562 men who were non-joggers at both examinations.1 The authors followed up the cohort from 1976-8 to 1998 and found that the joggers' relative risk of death was 0.39 (95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.73).
The participants rather than the authors defined jogging. The paper does not include information on how or how much the men exercised at the time of the examinations or in between and after the examinations. It is not clear whether the men agreed on a common definition of jogging.
At the time of the two examinations, in 1976-8 and 1981-3, 217 (4.7%) and 202 (4.3%) respectively of the 4658 men, aged 20-79, reported that they were joggers. These numbers are surprisingly low. According to a study carried out in 1994 by the Danish National Institute for Public Health, 59.5% of men aged ⩾16 exercised or considered themselves to be physically active. Even among men aged ⩾67, 55.4% exercised or considered themselves to be physically active.2
No data on mortality are presented in the paper. Because of the small number of joggers the relative risk of death is presumably sensitive to small differences in mortality even though the difference is significant.
The authors point out that their study is observational and that it controls for age but not for differences in lifestyle. A healthy jogger effect rather than jogging in itself may explain the difference in mortality.