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

Learn More →

Use and Misuse of Epidemiology-Reply

Use and Misuse of Epidemiology-Reply This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract To the Editor.— On behalf of all members of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, we are responding to the comments of Allen and Taplin regarding our article that appeared in the October 1973 issue of the Archives.The criticism of definitions, ie, of the use of the word "epidemiology" instead of "prevalence" is justifiable if one adheres to accepted strict definitions in epidemiology. Perhaps our paper would have best been called "A Clinical Study of Contact Dermatitis in Patients with Eczema." However, it is questionable whether the criticism is just that the main conclusions of the article are not valid because of the "unrepresentative and biased sample of the population at risk." There is no reason for assuming that patients, for example, with nickel hypersensitivity, or with wool wax alcohol hypersensitivity, or with formalin hypersensitivity, or with p-phenylenediamine hypersensitivity, would be present selectively or preponderantly due to any http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Dermatology American Medical Association

Use and Misuse of Epidemiology-Reply

Use and Misuse of Epidemiology-Reply

Abstract

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract To the Editor.— On behalf of all members of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, we are responding to the comments of Allen and Taplin regarding our article that appeared in the October 1973 issue of the Archives.The criticism of definitions, ie, of the use of the word "epidemiology" instead of "prevalence" is...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/use-and-misuse-of-epidemiology-reply-E52htnK9Rq
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-987X
eISSN
1538-3652
DOI
10.1001/archderm.1974.01630070090034
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables. Abstract To the Editor.— On behalf of all members of the North American Contact Dermatitis Group, we are responding to the comments of Allen and Taplin regarding our article that appeared in the October 1973 issue of the Archives.The criticism of definitions, ie, of the use of the word "epidemiology" instead of "prevalence" is justifiable if one adheres to accepted strict definitions in epidemiology. Perhaps our paper would have best been called "A Clinical Study of Contact Dermatitis in Patients with Eczema." However, it is questionable whether the criticism is just that the main conclusions of the article are not valid because of the "unrepresentative and biased sample of the population at risk." There is no reason for assuming that patients, for example, with nickel hypersensitivity, or with wool wax alcohol hypersensitivity, or with formalin hypersensitivity, or with p-phenylenediamine hypersensitivity, would be present selectively or preponderantly due to any

Journal

Archives of DermatologyAmerican Medical Association

Published: Jul 1, 1974

There are no references for this article.