Inappropriate comparisons of incidence and prevalence in epidemiologic research.
- 1 September 1989
- journal article
- editorial
- Published by American Public Health Association in American Journal of Public Health
- Vol. 79 (9) , 1301-1303
- https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.79.9.1301
Abstract
Several epidemiologists have published papers in major medical journals in which they compare incidence rates and prevalence and use these comparisons to support conclusions regarding questions of major public health importance. Although these papers have been criticized in published correspondence, we believe that continued use and advocacy of such comparisons by some epidemiologists has created the need for a full discussion of this practice. In this commentary, we review basic differences between incidence and prevalence and show that direct comparison of these two measures is inappropriate for conceptual, theoretical, and practical reasons.This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Epidemiologic NecropsyPublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1987
- Probable Alzheimer's disease in an artistJAMA, 1987
- Perspectives on adolescent substance use. A defined population studyJAMA, 1987
- The consequences of uncertainty. An empirical approach to medical decision making in neonatal intensive carePublished by American Medical Association (AMA) ,1987
- The 'epidemiologic necropsy'. Unexpected detections, demographic selections, and changing rates of lung cancerJAMA, 1987
- Incidence, prevalence, and evidenceThe American Journal of Medicine, 1987
- ENDOMETRIAL CANCER AND DETECTION BIASThe Lancet, 1981
- DETECTION BIAS AND ENDOMETRIAL CANCERThe Lancet, 1981
- MATERNAL LEAD LEVELS AFTER ALTERATIONS TO WATER SUPPLYThe Lancet, 1981
- NECROPSY DIAGNOSIS OF ENDOMETRIAL CANCER AND DETECTION-BIAS IN CASE/CONTROL STUDIESThe Lancet, 1981