Het NCI is niet de enige die dit zegt. Ook anderen kwamen met soortgelijke uitspraken:
Sir Richard Doll
Sir Richard Doll, een van de eerste onderzoekers die een verband tussen roken en longkanker rapporteerde zegt hierover:
” … when the relative risk lies between 1 and 2 … problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect.”
(The Causes of Cancer,” by Richard Doll, F.R.S. and
Richard Peto. Oxford-New York,
Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 1219).
WHO/IARC
Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so. – Breslow and Day, 1980, Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1, The analysis of case control studies. Published by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Sci. Pub. No. 32, Lyon, p. 36
FDA
Relative risks of 2 have a history of unreliability – Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA),
Letters, September 8, 1999
“My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” – Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.
IAQC
“An association is generally considered weak if the odds ratio [relative risk] is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer.” – Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist
