Re: “Validation of a Method for Reconstructing Historical Rates of Smoking Prevalence”
Authors:
Open Access
- 25 July 2014
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in American Journal of Epidemiology
- Vol. 180 (6) , 656-658
Abstract
In their recent paper, Bilal et al. (1) incorrectly assert that no researchers have assessed the validity of historical smoking prevalence derived from retrospectively reported data. A large body of literature validates this type of data in general (2–4) and smoking data in particular (5–12). In fact, at least 2 previously published studies applied an improved method (8, 9) with better data.Keywords
This publication has 19 references indexed in Scilit:
- Dying for a smoke: How much does differential mortality of smokers affect estimated life-course smoking prevalence?Preventive Medicine, 2010
- Validity of Recall of Tobacco Use in Two Prospective CohortsAmerican Journal of Epidemiology, 2010
- Reliability of self reported smoking status by pregnant women for estimating smoking prevalence: a retrospective, cross sectional studyBMJ, 2009
- The accuracy of self-reported smoking: A systematic review of the relationship between self-reported and cotinine-assessed smoking statusNicotine & Tobacco Research, 2009
- Reliability of adult retrospective recall of lifetime tobacco useNicotine & Tobacco Research, 2008
- Accounting for misclassification error in retrospective smoking dataHealth Economics, 2004
- Misclassification of the dependent variable in a discrete-response settingJournal of Econometrics, 1998
- Mortality from tobacco in developed countries: indirect estimation from national vital statisticsThe Lancet, 1992
- Accuracy of recalled smoking data.American Journal of Public Health, 1989
- A validation of questionnaire information on occupational exposure and smoking.Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 1982