Advertisement

European Journal of Epidemiology

, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 89–90 | Cite as

Reply to Greenland: A serious misinterpretation of a consistent inverse association of statin use with glioma across 3 case–control studies

  • Corinna Seliger
  • Christoph R. Meier
  • Claudia Becker
  • Susan S. Jick
  • Ulrich Bogdahn
  • Peter Hau
  • Michael F. Leitzmann
CORRESPONDENCE
  • 383 Downloads

We thank Dr. Greenland for raising an important issue concerning the interpretation of our data and we briefly respond to his points [1], as also presented in other recent articles [2, 3]. Before doing so, we would like to clarify that the title of his response is overstated because it leads the reader into believing that we interpreted the association between statin use and glioma as not being inverse across three studies. In contrast to the misleading wording of Dr. Greenland’s title, we interpreted the data of only one study (namely our own) as there being no association between statins and glioma [4], but consistently referred to previous studies [5, 6] as supporting an inverse relation between the two.

Apart from Dr. Greenland’s title profoundly misrepresenting our paper, we agree with some but not all of his comments. One point we agree with is that our abstract did not state that our point estimate showed an inverse relation of statins to glioma. Thus, the wording should have...

Keywords

Congestive Heart Failure Statin Glioma Cell Point Estimate Inverse Association 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Greenland S. A serious misinterpretation of a consistent inverse association of statin use with glioma across 3 case–control studies. Eur J Epidemiol (under production).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Greenland S, Senn SJ, Rothman KJ, Carlin JB, Poole C, Goodman SN, Altman DG. Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: a guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:337–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rothman KJ. Disengaging from statistical significance. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:443–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seliger C, Meier CR, Becker C, Jick SS, Bogdahn U, Hau P, Leitzmann MF. Statin use and risk of glioma: population-based case–control analysis. Eur J Epidemiol. 2016;31:947–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ferris JS, McCoy L, Neugut AI, Wrensch M, Lai R. HMG CoA reductase inhibitors, NSAIDs and risk of glioma. Int J Cancer. 2012;131:E1031–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaist D, Andersen L, Hallas J, Sorensen HT, Schroder HD, Friis S. Use of statins and risk of glioma: a nationwide case–control study in Denmark. Br J Cancer. 2013;108:715–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Corinna Seliger
    • 1
  • Christoph R. Meier
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
  • Claudia Becker
    • 2
  • Susan S. Jick
    • 3
  • Ulrich Bogdahn
    • 1
  • Peter Hau
    • 1
  • Michael F. Leitzmann
    • 5
  1. 1.Wilhelm Sander-NeuroOncology Unit, Department of NeurologyRegensburg University HospitalRegensburgGermany
  2. 2.Basel Pharmacoepidemiology Unit, Division of Clinical Pharmacy and Epidemiology, Department of Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of BaselBaselSwitzerland
  3. 3.Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program, Boston University School of Public HealthBoston UniversityBostonUSA
  4. 4.Hospital PharmacyUniversity Hospital BaselBaselSwitzerland
  5. 5.Department of Epidemiology and Preventive MedicineUniversity of RegensburgRegensburgGermany

Personalised recommendations