We understand the argument of Mundt et al. [
[1]
] as they reiterate the concerns of Greenland and others [
2
,
3
]. However, we live in a world in which the judiciary is being asked to make decisions
related to this issue. In the absence of a true biologic model the choice is either
to do nothing or to use the best available model and the most recent evidence to help
the judiciary make those decisions. Our model does not claim to apportion a disease
in an individual to its specific causes as suggested by Mundt et al. The model actually
apportions responsibility, by partitioning excess risk between multiple risk factors.
We also acknowledge that the attributable risks can add up to more than 100%, which
is why we emphasize that the risk calculated is a minimum attributable risk.To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Letter to the editor: Apportionment of disease in individuals.J Clin Epidemiol. 2003; 56: 291
- Relation of probability of causation to relative risk and doubling dose: a methodologic error that has become a social problem.Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 1166-1169
- The importance of specifying the underlying biologic model in estimating the probability of causation.Health Phys. 1999; 76: 269-274
Article info
Identification
Copyright
© 2003 Elsevier Science Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
