@article{ref1,
title="Values, errors, and precautions",
journal="International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health",
year="2004",
author="Needleman, Herbert L.",
volume="17",
number="1",
pages="111-114",
abstract="In the environmental health literature, errors in interpreting studies or data are not infrequent. Many are of the Type II variety. Common solecisms of this type are: treating the criterion of p < 0.05 as a sacrament; demanding complete confounder control; arguing for the existence of phantom confounders; arguing that the effect size is trivial; building nonveridical models; arguing for no effect from inadequate sample size; demanding causal proof; arguing that causality is reversed; conducting a ballot of published studies. These are examined in this paper.<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1232-1087",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}