高剂量维生素有益或有害影响证据的流行病学标准。

R Bruppacher
{"title":"高剂量维生素有益或有害影响证据的流行病学标准。","authors":"R Bruppacher","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Criteria for epidemiological evidence of effects of elevated dosages of vitamins are basically the same as those for the evidence of effects of other exposures. Given the unambiguous classifications of both exposure and cases, they comprise strength, significance, specificity, and consistency of the statistical association, plausible time relationship as well as dose-effect relationship and consistency with other evidence. Today, the term epidemiological evidence usually refers to field experience, often to \"observational,\" i.e., non-experimental, evidence. An extreme example for this are the so-called \"ecological studies,\" which are frequently criticized because of their potential for exaggerated interpretations, though they can be very helpful in constructing and supporting hypotheses. For very rare and long-term effects the description and evaluation of individual cases are often combined with attempts of quantification, by relating them to the estimated exposure of the source population. This is subject to numerous sources of errors. If it is difficult to confirm the existence of rare and late effects, as the collection and interpretation of data on the prevention of such effects often present almost insurmountable methodological challenges. However, with correct interpretation and by keeping the quantitative perspective in mind, epidemiological evidence can be extremely helpful in the assessment of the overall importance, i.e., the public health significance, of such effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":77728,"journal":{"name":"International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Supplement = Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Supplement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1989-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Epidemiological criteria for evidence of beneficial or adverse effects of elevated dosages of vitamins.\",\"authors\":\"R Bruppacher\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Criteria for epidemiological evidence of effects of elevated dosages of vitamins are basically the same as those for the evidence of effects of other exposures. Given the unambiguous classifications of both exposure and cases, they comprise strength, significance, specificity, and consistency of the statistical association, plausible time relationship as well as dose-effect relationship and consistency with other evidence. Today, the term epidemiological evidence usually refers to field experience, often to \\\"observational,\\\" i.e., non-experimental, evidence. An extreme example for this are the so-called \\\"ecological studies,\\\" which are frequently criticized because of their potential for exaggerated interpretations, though they can be very helpful in constructing and supporting hypotheses. For very rare and long-term effects the description and evaluation of individual cases are often combined with attempts of quantification, by relating them to the estimated exposure of the source population. This is subject to numerous sources of errors. If it is difficult to confirm the existence of rare and late effects, as the collection and interpretation of data on the prevention of such effects often present almost insurmountable methodological challenges. However, with correct interpretation and by keeping the quantitative perspective in mind, epidemiological evidence can be extremely helpful in the assessment of the overall importance, i.e., the public health significance, of such effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77728,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Supplement = Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Supplement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1989-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Supplement = Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Supplement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal for vitamin and nutrition research. Supplement = Internationale Zeitschrift fur Vitamin- und Ernahrungsforschung. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高剂量维生素影响的流行病学证据标准与其他暴露影响的证据标准基本相同。鉴于暴露和病例的明确分类,它们包括统计关联的强度、显著性、特异性和一致性,合理的时间关系以及剂量-效应关系和与其他证据的一致性。今天,流行病学证据一词通常指现场经验,通常指“观察”证据,即非实验证据。一个极端的例子是所谓的“生态研究”,它经常受到批评,因为它们有可能夸大解释,尽管它们在构建和支持假设方面非常有帮助。对于非常罕见和长期的影响,通常将对个别病例的描述和评估与量化尝试结合起来,将其与源人群的估计暴露联系起来。这受到许多错误来源的影响。如果很难确认罕见和晚期影响的存在,因为收集和解释关于预防这种影响的数据往往是几乎无法克服的方法挑战。然而,通过正确解释并牢记定量观点,流行病学证据在评估此类影响的总体重要性,即公共卫生意义方面可能非常有帮助。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Epidemiological criteria for evidence of beneficial or adverse effects of elevated dosages of vitamins.

Criteria for epidemiological evidence of effects of elevated dosages of vitamins are basically the same as those for the evidence of effects of other exposures. Given the unambiguous classifications of both exposure and cases, they comprise strength, significance, specificity, and consistency of the statistical association, plausible time relationship as well as dose-effect relationship and consistency with other evidence. Today, the term epidemiological evidence usually refers to field experience, often to "observational," i.e., non-experimental, evidence. An extreme example for this are the so-called "ecological studies," which are frequently criticized because of their potential for exaggerated interpretations, though they can be very helpful in constructing and supporting hypotheses. For very rare and long-term effects the description and evaluation of individual cases are often combined with attempts of quantification, by relating them to the estimated exposure of the source population. This is subject to numerous sources of errors. If it is difficult to confirm the existence of rare and late effects, as the collection and interpretation of data on the prevention of such effects often present almost insurmountable methodological challenges. However, with correct interpretation and by keeping the quantitative perspective in mind, epidemiological evidence can be extremely helpful in the assessment of the overall importance, i.e., the public health significance, of such effects.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Use and safety of elevated dosages of vitamin E in infants and children. High-dose vitamin D therapy: indications, benefits and hazards. Vitamin D requirements and vitamin D intoxication in infancy. Safety of high-level vitamin C ingestion. Epidemiological criteria for evidence of beneficial or adverse effects of elevated dosages of vitamins.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1