Reply to A. Stang et al, J.T. Rowley et al, and F. Samkange-Zeeb et al

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Volumn 28, Issue 7, 2010, Pages

  Myung, Seung Kwon ^a   Ju, Woong ^b   McDonnell, Diana D ^c   Lee, Yeon Ji ^d   Kazinets, Gene ^c   Cheng, Chih Tao ^e   Moskowitz, Joel M ^c  

^a National Cancer Center   (South Korea)

^b Ewha Womans University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d Inha University School of Medicine   (South Korea)

^e KOO FOUNDATION SUN YAT SEN CANCER CENTER   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANCER RISK; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CHECKLIST; HUMAN; LETTER; MOBILE PHONE; MORBIDITY; MORTALITY; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; NEWCASTLE OTTAWA SCALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SELF REPORT;

EID: 79951733270     PISSN: 0732183X     EISSN: 15277755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2009.26.8375     Document Type: Letter

References (12)

1. Stang A, Schmidt-Pokrzywniak A, Kuss O: Arbitrary results of a meta-analysis on cancer risks among mobile phone users. J Clin Oncol 28:e121, 2010
2. Rowley JT, Milligan MJ: Studies of mobile phone use and brain tumor risk are independent of industry influence. J Clin Oncol 28:e122, 2010
3. Samkange-Zeeb F, Schüz J, Schlehofer B, et al: Comparison of studies on mobile phone use and risk of tumors. J Clin Oncol 28:e123, 2010
4. Myung SK, Ju W, McDonnell DD, et al: Mobile phone use and risk of tumors: A meta-analysis. J Clin Oncol 27:5565-5572, 2009
5. Mallen C, Peat G, Croft P: Quality assessment of observational studies is not commonplace in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 59:765-769, 2006 (Pubitemid 43975728)
6. Stang A, Anastassiou G, Ahrens W, et al: The possible role of radiofrequency radiation in the development of uveal melanoma. Epidemiology 12:7-12, 2001 (Pubitemid 32006455)
7. Higgins JP, Thompson SG: Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 21:1539-1558, 2002 (Pubitemid 34746062)
8. Moskowitz JM: Why reports of outcome evaluation are often biased or uninterpretable. Evaluation Prog Planning 16:1-9, 1993
9. Mucha L, Stephenson J, Morandi N, et al: Meta-analysis of disease risk associated with smoking, by gender and intensity of smoking. Gend Med 3:279-291, 2006 (Pubitemid 46927845)
10. Hulley SB, Cummings SR, Browner WS, et al: Designing clinical research (ed 3). Philadelphia, PA, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2007
11. Vrijheid M, Richardson L, Armstrong BK, et al: Quantifying the impact of selection bias caused by nonparticipation in a case-control study of mobile phone use. Ann Epidemiol 19:33-42, 2009
12. Morgan LL: Estimating the risk of brain tumors from cellphone use: Published case-control studies. Pathophysiology 16:137-147, 2009