Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Consanguinity and confounding

Consanguinity and confounding Received I January, acceptedjor publication 20 January 1990 In an epidemiologic investigation of the effect of consanguinity on reproductive wastage (Basaran et al. 1989), the authors initially recognized the difficulty in distinguishing the influence of genetic and environmental factors on reproductive wastage. Neither in the analysis, nor even in the discussion, however, did they attempt to take environmental factors into consideration. The results taken at face value indicate a strong effect of consanguinity on the risk of fetal and infant death. We have no access to data on the association between socioeconomic factors and consanguinity in Turkey, and the authors do not mention such data. Consanguinity in Turkey might be a traditional phenomenon, and especially in the cities most prevalent among the less affluent part of the population. We would in fact be surprised if it were not the case. Why do the authors not address this central issue? Virtually hundreds of studies from all over the world have invariably shown a strong association between socioeconomic conditions and the risk of fetal and infant death. The figures in the paper probably to a large extent (or entirely) reflect this association rather than the effect of consanguinity. The impressive magnitude of the investigation in no way compensates for this obvious source of confounding; it should have been taken into consideration during the analysis, or at least in the discussion of the results. The investigation does not improve insight into the effects of consanguinity. Biased results may harm not only the development of scientific knowledge, but also the public perception. In Denmark, persons hostile to immigrants have spread the idea that Turkish immigrants - because of consanguinity - gave birth to a high proportion of malformed children. A carefully conducted and analyzed study (Mac 8c Knudsen 1989) did not support the postulate. E. Z. Jeppesen S. Juul http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Clinical Genetics Wiley

Consanguinity and confounding

Jeppesen, E. Z.; Juul, S.
Clinical Genetics , Volume 37 (5) – May 1, 1990
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/consanguinity-and-confounding-IkejBDSXYA

References (3)

Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
1990 Blackwell Munksgaard
ISSN
0009-9163
eISSN
1399-0004
DOI
10.1111/j.1399-0004.1990.tb03522.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Received I January, acceptedjor publication 20 January 1990 In an epidemiologic investigation of the effect of consanguinity on reproductive wastage (Basaran et al. 1989), the authors initially recognized the difficulty in distinguishing the influence of genetic and environmental factors on reproductive wastage. Neither in the analysis, nor even in the discussion, however, did they attempt to take environmental factors into consideration. The results taken at face value indicate a strong effect of consanguinity on the risk of fetal and infant death. We have no access to data on the association between socioeconomic factors and consanguinity in Turkey, and the authors do not mention such data. Consanguinity in Turkey might be a traditional phenomenon, and especially in the cities most prevalent among the less affluent part of the population. We would in fact be surprised if it were not the case. Why do the authors not address this central issue? Virtually hundreds of studies from all over the world have invariably shown a strong association between socioeconomic conditions and the risk of fetal and infant death. The figures in the paper probably to a large extent (or entirely) reflect this association rather than the effect of consanguinity. The impressive magnitude of the investigation in no way compensates for this obvious source of confounding; it should have been taken into consideration during the analysis, or at least in the discussion of the results. The investigation does not improve insight into the effects of consanguinity. Biased results may harm not only the development of scientific knowledge, but also the public perception. In Denmark, persons hostile to immigrants have spread the idea that Turkish immigrants - because of consanguinity - gave birth to a high proportion of malformed children. A carefully conducted and analyzed study (Mac 8c Knudsen 1989) did not support the postulate. E. Z. Jeppesen S. Juul

Journal

Clinical Genetics – Wiley

Published: May 1, 1990

There are no references for this article.