Big data in epidemiology: Too big to fail?

Epidemiology

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 938-939

  Chiolero, Arnaud ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LAUSANNE   (Switzerland)

^b Observatoire Valaisan de la Santé OVS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC METHOD; DATA ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIOLOGY; LETTER; MEASUREMENT ERROR; OBSERVATIONAL METHOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN;

DATABASES, FACTUAL; EPIDEMIOLOGIC RESEARCH DESIGN; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; PRODUCT SURVEILLANCE, POSTMARKETING;

EID: 84885332612     PISSN: 10443983     EISSN: 15315487     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/EDE.0b013e31829e46dc     Document Type: Letter

References (6)

1. Toh S, Platt R. Is size the next big thing in epidemiology? Epidemiology. 2013;24:349-351
2. Anderson C. The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Available at: Www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/ 16-07/pb-theory. Accessed 13 May 2013
3. Vandenbroucke JP. When are observational studies as credible as randomised trials? Lancet. 2004;363:1728-1731
4. Lawlor DA, Davey Smith G, Kundu D, Bruckdorfer KR, Ebrahim S. Those confounded vitamins: What can we learn from the differences between observational versus randomised trial evidence? Lancet. 2004;363:1724-1727
5. Ioannidis JP. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2:e124
6. Ioannidis JP. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology. 2008;19: 640-648