The proper approach to assessing the impact of the fact that e-cigarettes were not available before 2007.
The proper approach to assessing the impact of the fact that e-cigarettes were not available before 2007.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/add.15103
复制
发表时间：
2020-11
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Glantz SA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bhatta DN;Glantz SA
在一项横断面研究中，人们计算了在固定时间点观察到的数据中暴露（在这种情况下是电子烟和香烟使用）与结果（在这种情况下是急性心肌梗死）之间的关联。在这种情况下，具体问题是心肌梗死是否可能在使用电子烟之前发生。Rodu & Plurphanswat提供了对烟草与健康人口评估（PATH）数据集的另一种分析，该数据集发现了心肌梗死与电子烟使用之间的关联。他们的分析选择性地改变了在心肌梗死前开始使用电子烟的电子烟使用者的数据，这在横断面研究中是不合适的。他们不恰当的分析导致了生物学上令人难以置信的结果，即非日常使用电子烟可以预防心肌梗死。对所有暴露组进行相同处理的标准横断面分析是进行此类研究的适当方法。
In a cross-sectional study, one computes the association between exposures (in this case e-cigarette and cigarette use) and an outcome (in this case having had an acute myocardial infarction) among data observed at a fixed point in time. In this case the specific issue is whether the myocardial infarctions may have occurred before e-cigarette use. Rodu & Plurphanswat provided an alternative analysis of the Population Assessment of Tobacco and Health (PATH) data set to one we published, that found an association between having had a myocardial infarction and e-cigarette use. Their analysis selectively changes data for e-cigarette users who started using e-cigarettes before their myocardial infarction, which is inappropriate in a cross-sectional study. Their inappropriate analysis led to the biologically implausible result that non-daily e-cigarette use was protective against myocardial infarction. A standard cross-sectional analysis that treats all exposure groups the same is the appropriate way to do such studies.
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
Bhatta, Dharma N.;Glantz, Stanton A.
通讯作者：
Glantz, Stanton A.