Skip Navigation


Journal of the National Cancer Institute Advance Access originally published online on July 8, 2008
JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2008 100(14):975; doi:10.1093/jnci/djn264
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
100/14/975-a    most recent
djn264v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Related Collections
Right arrowRelated Article in JNCI
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© Oxford University Press 2008.

MEMO TO THE MEDIA

Skepticism and Greater Awareness of Epidemiology's Limitations Could Reduce Impact of False-Positive Cancer Results

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

False-positive results are an inherent risk in cancer research, particularly in observational epidemiology studies. The frequency and impact of misleading results can be mitigated if researchers use more exacting standards when interpreting and reporting results, according to a commentary in the July 8 online issue of the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Contact:

Citation:


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?

Related Article in JNCI

False-Positive Results in Cancer Epidemiology: A Plea for Epistemological Modesty
Paolo Boffetta, Joseph K. McLaughlin, Carlo La Vecchia, Robert E. Tarone, Loren Lipworth, and William J. Blot
J Natl Cancer Inst 2008 100: 988-995. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]