You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 126 No. 2, February 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (4)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letter
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Glaucoma
 •Ophthalmological Disorders, Other
 •Statistics and Research Methods
 •Endocrine Diseases
 •Diabetes Mellitus
 •Hypertension
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Misclassification

Who Really Lives in This Neighborhood?

Alfred Sommer, MD, MHS

Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(2):265-266.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

My ophthalmologic career might well have ended before it truly began. In an editorial prepared as a second-year resident, I decried the sorry state of clinical research (citing the shortcomings of published articles by leading academics) and called for the rigorous application of epidemiologic and statistical principles.1 Fortunately, those cited withheld retribution and, more often than not, graciously encouraged my efforts.

That led to my preparing a primer on basic epidemiologic and statistical principles for use by ophthalmic investigators (and their readers).2 The most basic principle of all was that epidemiology was "a peculiarly thoughtful approach to studies amounting to applied common sense."2(p3)

Quantitative rigor and "common sense" now permeate ophthalmic research and are responsible for a significant share of our understanding of the magnitude, distribution, causes, and appropriate treatment of disease. But to an alarming degree, growth in the quantity of "epidemiologic" data has diminished . . . [Full Text of this Article]


AUTHOR INFORMATION


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTER

Diabetes and Glaucoma
Michael A. Kass, Mae O. Gordon, and for the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(5):746-747.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED ARTICLE

Is a History of Diabetes Mellitus Protective Against Developing Primary Open-angle Glaucoma?
Mae O. Gordon, Julia A. Beiser, Michael A. Kass, and for the Ocular Hypertension Treatment Study Group
Arch Ophthalmol. 2008;126(2):280-281.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Proposed Mandate for Instructions and Labeling Regarding the Use of Eye Drops
Flach
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:1207-1209.
FULL TEXT  

Pediatric Refractive Surgery
Brown
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:807-809.
FULL TEXT  

Can Diabetes Be Good for Glaucoma? Why Can't We Believe Our Own Eyes (or Data)?
Quigley
Arch Ophthalmol 2009;127:227-229.
FULL TEXT  

Diabetes and Glaucoma
Kass et al.
Arch Ophthalmol 2008;126:746-747.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2008 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.