Commentary: Epidemiologists have debated representativeness for more than 40 years-has the time come to move on?

International Journal of Epidemiology

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 1016-1017

  Nohr, Ellen A ^a   Olsen, Jørn ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOSTATISTICS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK FACTOR; SOCIOLOGY;

EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES; SAMPLING STUDIES;

EID: 84884750833     PISSN: 03005771     EISSN: 14643685     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ije/dyt102     Document Type: Note

References (8)

1. Rothman KJ, Gallacher J, Hatch E. Why representativeness should be avoided. Int J Epidemiol 2013;42:1012-14.
2. Mackie JL. The Cement of The Universe: a Study of Causation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974.
3. Rothman KJ. Causes. Am J Epidemiol 1995;141:90-95.
4. Olsen J. Random sampling-is it worth it?. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol 2013;27:27-28.
5. Harris W. Heraclitus: The Complete Fragments. Translation and commentary and the Greek Text; available at http://community. middlebury.edu/~harris/Philosophy/heraclitus.pdf (16 May 2013, date last accessed).
6. Greene N, Greenland S, Olsen J, Nohr EA. Estimating bias from loss to follow-up in the Danish National Birth Cohort. Epidemiology 2011;22:815-22.
7. Howe LD, Tilling K, Galobardes B, Lawlor DA. Loss to follow-up in cohort studies: bias in estimates of socioeconomic inequalities. Epidemiology 2013;24:1-9.
8. Nohr EA, Frydenberg M, Henriksen TB, Olsen J. Does low participation in cohort studies induce bias?. Epidemiology 2006;17:413-18.