NO - Besoin d'assistance

Observational epidemiological surveys (WG 3) page 6
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Evaluation of epidemiological data will be based on the causal inference criteria as described
first by Hill (1965) as follows:
• Consistency of the results
• Strength of the association
• Dose- response
• Biological plausibility
• Analogy
We did not use either experimental data, because animal models are not necessarily relevant
to the study of nutritional risk factors in humans, or temporality relationship because of the
difficulty in assessing retrospective nutritional intake. However, we included large
intervention trials, in which epidemiological observations could be made, and they represent
some types of experimental data.
Vocabulary
To characterise the relationship between cancer and food or nutriment we used the vocabulary
of the three books mentioned above:
• no data reported: the authors ignored any data related to this relationship
• no relationship: no effect of the food or nutriment was considered on cancer
• insufficient: not enough data to draw a conclusion (less than three studies)
• consistent: good agreement of data
• inconsistent: heterogeneity of data, no major trends in the results.
• convincing: the evidence of a causal relationship is conclusive and sufficient for
being the basis for dietary recommendations
• probable: the causal relationship is likely and sufficient for being the basis for
dietary recommendations
• possible: a causal relationship may exist, but the evidence is not strong enough to
be a basis for recommendations. This qualification covers inconsistent results, but
with a tendency of more results showing an effect.
Part 1: Tomatoes and tomato products, lycopene, other tomato
microcompouds and cancers