Erratum: Which of these things is not like the others? Cancer doi: 10.1002/cncr.28359;Which of these things is not like the others?

Cancer

Volumn 119, Issue 24, 2013, Pages 4216-4222

  Kaufman, Jay S ^a   MacLehose, Richard F ^b  

^a MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALYTICAL ERROR; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG EXPOSURE; HUMAN; NOTE; NULL HYPOTHESIS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; PROSTATE CANCER; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RISK ASSESSMENT; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; NEOPLASMS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84889888898     PISSN: 0008543X     EISSN: 10970142     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.28496     Document Type: Erratum

References (28)

1. Hernán MA, Robins JM,. Estimating causal effects from epidemiological data. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006; 60: 578-586.
2. Greenland S, Robins JM,. Identifiability, exchangeability, and epidemiological confounding. Int J Epidemiol. 1986; 15: 413-419.
3. Greenland S, Rothman KJ,. Introduction to stratified analysis. In:, Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, eds. Modern Epidemiology, III ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2008.
4. Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, et al; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Epidemiology. 2007; 18: 805-835.
5. Weinberg CR,. It's time to rehabilitate the P-value. Epidemiology. 2001; 12: 288-290.
6. Marshall SW,. Power for tests of interaction: effect of raising the Type I error rate. Epidemiol Perspect Innov. 2007; 4: 4.
7. Flynn NM, Forthal DN, Harro CD, Judson FN, Mayer KH, Para MF,; rgp120 HIV Vaccine Study Group. Placebo-controlled phase 3 trial of a recombinant glycoprotein 120 vaccine to prevent HIV-1 infection. J Infect Dis. 2005; 191: 654-665.
8. Watanabe ME,. Skeptical scientists skewer VaxGen statistics. Nat Med. 2003; 9: 376.
9. Assmann SF, Pocock SJ, Enos LE, Kasten LE,. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet. 2000; 355: 1064-1069.
10. Rothwell PM,. Treating individuals 2. Subgroup analysis in randomised controlled trials: importance, indications, and interpretation. Lancet. 2005; 365: 176-186.
11. White IR, Elbourne D,. Assessing subgroup effects with binary data: can the use of different effect measures lead to different conclusions? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5: 15.
12. Bracken MB,. Preregistration of epidemiology protocols: a commentary in support. Epidemiology. 2011; 22: 135-137.
13. Knol MJ, Egger M, Scott P, Geerlings MI, Vandenbroucke JP,. When one depends on the other: reporting of interaction in case-control and cohort studies. Epidemiology. 2009; 20: 161-166.
14. Nieuwenhuis S, Forstmann BU, Wagenmakers EJ,. Erroneous analyses of interactions in neuroscience: a problem of significance. Nat Neurosci. 2011; 14: 1105-1107.
15. Lang JM, Rothman KJ, Cann CI,. That confounded P-value. Epidemiology. 1998; 9: 7-8.
16. Gelman A, Stern H,. The difference between "significant" and "not significant" is not itself statistically significant. Am Stat. 2006; 60: 328-331.
17. Moore SC, Peters TM, Ahn J, et al. Age-specific physical activity and prostate cancer risk among white men and black men. Cancer. 2009; 115: 5060-5070.
18. Breslow NE,. Statistics in epidemiology: The case-control study. J Am Stat Assoc. 1996; 91: 14-28.
19. Tarone RE,. On heterogeneity tests based on efficient scores. Biometrika. 1985; 72: 91-95.
20. Zou G,. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol. 2004; 159: 702-706.
21. McNutt LA, Wu C, Xue X, Hafner JP,. Estimating the relative risk in cohort studies and clinical trials of common outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2003; 157: 940-943.
22. Wacholder S,. Binomial regression in GLIM: estimating risk ratios and risk differences. Am J Epidemiol. 1986; 123: 174-184.
23. Greenland S,. Tests for interaction in epidemiologic studies: a review and a study of power. Stat Med. 1983; 2: 243-251.
24. Altman DG, Bland JM,. Interaction revisited: the difference between two estimates. BMJ. 2003; 326: 219.
25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG,. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003; 327: 557-560.
26. Singh AA, Jones LW, Antonelli JA, et al. Association between exercise and primary incidence of prostate cancer: does race matter? Cancer. 2013; 119: 1338-1343.
27. Liu Y, Hu F, Li D, et al. Does physical activity reduce the risk of prostate cancer? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Urol. 2011; 60: 1029-1044.
28. Maclure M, Schneeweiss S,. Causation of bias: the episcope. Epidemiology. 2001; 12: 114-122.