Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2008 Jul 16;100(14):988-95.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djn191. Epub 2008 Jul 8.

False-positive results in cancer epidemiology: a plea for epistemological modesty

Paolo Boffetta  1 , Joseph K McLaughlin, Carlo La Vecchia, Robert E Tarone, Loren Lipworth, William J Blot
Affiliations
Review

False-positive results in cancer epidemiology: a plea for epistemological modesty

Paolo Boffetta et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. .

Abstract

False-positive results are inherent in the scientific process of testing hypotheses concerning the determinants of cancer and other human illnesses. Although much of what is known about the etiology of human cancers has arisen from well-conducted epidemiological studies, epidemiology has been increasingly criticized for producing findings that are often sensationalized in the media and fail to be upheld in subsequent studies. Herein we describe examples from cancer epidemiology of likely false-positive findings and discuss conditions under which such results may occur. We suggest general guidelines or principles, including the endorsement of editorial policies requiring the prominent listing of study caveats, which may help reduce the reporting of misleading results. Increased epistemological humility regarding findings in epidemiology would go a long way to diminishing the detrimental effects of false-positive results on the allocation of limited research resources, on the advancement of knowledge of the causes and prevention of cancer, and on the scientific reputation of epidemiology and would help to prevent oversimplified interpretations of results by the media and the public.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Cumulative meta-analysis of cohort studies of breast cancer and serum level of 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis(p-chlorophenyl) ethylene (highest vs lowest category in each study). Estimated relative risks (RRs) are shown with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (error bars) by year of publication of subsequent reports. In parentheses are references of studies included in the cumulative meta-analyses (see Table 1 for details). Upper confidence limit for the initial RR was 13.5.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative meta-analysis of cohort studies of lung cancer and occupational exposure to acrylonitrile. Estimated relative risks (RRs) are shown with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (error bars) by year of publication of subsequent reports. In parentheses are references of studies included in the cumulative meta-analyses (see Table 2 for details).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Funnel plot of results of studies on dioxin exposure and risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Closed diamonds, cohort studies; empty diamonds, case–control studies. RR = relative risk. se = standard error. See (76) for detailed results.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Colhoun HM, McKeigue PM, Davey Smith G. Problems of reporting genetic associations with complex outcomes. Lancet. 2003;361((9360)):865–872. - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005;2((8)):e124. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schottenfeld D, Fraumeni JF. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press;: 2006.
    1. Taubes G. Epidemiology faces its limits. Science. 1995;269(5221):164–169. - PubMed
    1. Pocock S, Collier T, Dandreo K, et al. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004;329(7471):883. - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms