What Do the Other Witnesses Say? Corroborating Evidence
Abstract This analogy also holds for research studies. Some studies are so well done that their evidence alone would be enough to convince you. Other studies, however, provide only weak evidence. But when this evidence is combined with other information, the evidence can become quite strong. Sir Aus...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Book Part |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
Oxford University PressOxford
2006
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198567608.003.0004 https://academic.oup.com/book/chapter-pdf/52351013/isbn-9780198567608-book-part-4.pdf |
| Summary: | Abstract This analogy also holds for research studies. Some studies are so well done that their evidence alone would be enough to convince you. Other studies, however, provide only weak evidence. But when this evidence is combined with other information, the evidence can become quite strong. Sir Austin Bradford Hill outlined a series of tests that you could use to evaluate whether an association between an environmental factor and disease was credible (Hill 1965). These criteria are not perfect. A strong criticism of Hill’s criteria appear in a classic textbook on epidemiology by Kenneth Rothman and Sander Greenland (Rothmann 1998). Rothman and Greenland point out that none of Hill’s criteria (with the exception of temporality) are necessary or sufficient for establishing cauastion. |
|---|