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

Learn More →

"Settling the UGDP Controversy"?

"Settling the UGDP Controversy"? CALLING it the "UGDP controversy" is an understatement. Unquestionably, the study itself triggered lively debate, but it was the prepublication extracting of supportive statements from the American Diabetes Association,1 the American Medical Association,2 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),3 and the press (New York Times, May 21, 1970; Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1970; Washington Post, May 22, 1970) that broadened the issue far beyond the implications of the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) itself. History now repeats itself, in that furor has again been created by reckless extrapolation of a small and temporary cardiovascular mortality trend observed in the UGDP to the entire diabetic population of the United States,4 and by unilateral publicizing (AMA news release, Jan 27, 1975) of the controversy. The observations and comments that follow relate not only to the espoused biostatistical validity5 of the original UGDP report,6 but also http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

"Settling the UGDP Controversy"?

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/settling-the-ugdp-controversy-hBzMWbo6y8

References (31)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1975 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.1975.03250080015008
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

CALLING it the "UGDP controversy" is an understatement. Unquestionably, the study itself triggered lively debate, but it was the prepublication extracting of supportive statements from the American Diabetes Association,1 the American Medical Association,2 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),3 and the press (New York Times, May 21, 1970; Wall Street Journal, May 21, 1970; Washington Post, May 22, 1970) that broadened the issue far beyond the implications of the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP) itself. History now repeats itself, in that furor has again been created by reckless extrapolation of a small and temporary cardiovascular mortality trend observed in the UGDP to the entire diabetic population of the United States,4 and by unilateral publicizing (AMA news release, Jan 27, 1975) of the controversy. The observations and comments that follow relate not only to the espoused biostatistical validity5 of the original UGDP report,6 but also

Journal

JAMAAmerican Medical Association

Published: May 26, 1975

There are no references for this article.