Passive smoking and heart disease
- 1 August 1998
- Vol. 317 (7154) , 344
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.317.7154.344
Abstract
See Editorial by SmithEducation and debate p). 333 # Authors need to analyse the same data {#article-title-2} EDITOR—In their meta-analysis Lawet al).1 reject results we published).2).3 on environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease, using data from the twolarge cancer prevention studies by the American Cancer Society and the national mortality followback survey. They reject our results because they disagree with our interpretation of data from other studies and because our analysis was funded by the tobacco industry (table 1). View this table: Table 1. Data rejected by Law et al for their meta-analysis of spousal smoking and mortality from coronary heart disease in cancer prevention study I.2 Values are relative risks (95% confidence intervals) By excluding our results Law et al discard 16 280 relevant deaths from coronary heart disease with spousal smoking data and retain 6600 cases. They give no hint that their meta-analysis includes under a third of the available published data. The reasons for rejecting so many data should be considered. If Law et al believe we have misrepresented the data, they should analyse the same data from the American Cancer Society and the national mortality followback survey, and report their results. Law et al's argument that our data from the second cancer prevention study disagree appreciablywith data reported by Steenland et al).4 is wrong.).5 They incorrectly compare our results for ever-smoking spouse exposure with Steenland et al's results for current-smoking spouse exposure. Both studies present comparable results for subjects in the second cancer prevention study who are married to a current smoker. We calculate the relative risk for men to be 1.30 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.51), for women 1.08 (0.89 to 1.32), and for both sexes combined 1.21 (1.07 to 1.37). These results are similar to those reported by Steenland et al (men 1.22 (1.07 to 1.40), women 1.10 (0.96 to 1.27))).4 which we have combined to give a …Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Environmental tobacco smoke exposure and ischaemic heart disease: an evaluation of the evidenceBMJ, 1997
- A Prospective Study of Passive Smoking and Coronary Heart DiseaseCirculation, 1997
- Mortality and morbidity of potentially misclassified smokersInternational Journal of Epidemiology, 1997
- Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Coronary Heart Disease in the American Cancer Society CPS-II CohortCirculation, 1996
- Ischemic Heart Disease and Spousal Smoking in the National Mortality Followback SurveyRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 1995
- Publication Bias in the Environmental Tobacco Smoke/Coronary Heart Disease Epidemiologic LiteratureRegulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 1995
- Differences between smokers, ex-smokers passive smokers and non-smokersJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1994
- Failed or misleading adjustment for confoundingThe Lancet, 1993
- Inverse correlation between essential antioxidants in plasma and subsequent risk to develop cancer, ischemic heart disease and stroke respectively: 12-year follow-up of the Prospective Basel StudyPublished by Springer Nature ,1992
- Dietary patterns of female nonsmokers with and without exposure to environmental tobacco smokeCancer Causes & Control, 1991