Document is current

Article History

Received: 12 May 2021

Revised: 4 June 2021

Accepted: 29 June 2022

First Online: 26 January 2024

ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE

: This work does not contain any studies involving human and animal subjects.

: The author of this work declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

: (1) “One of the most important papers published in the 20th century with thoughts on the epidemiological basis of disease causation” [CitationRef removed].(2) “Meta-analysis fails to provide objective grounds for intersubjective assessments of hypotheses because numerous decisions must be made when performing a meta-analysis, which allows wide latitude for subjective idiosyncrasies to influence its outcome. I end by suggesting that an older tradition of evidence in medicine, the plurality of reasoning strategies appealed to by the epidemiologist Sir Bradford Hill, is a superior strategy for assessing a large volume and diversity of evidence” [CitationRef removed].(3) “Be able to assess the real and potential both danger (harm) and beneficial effects of various types of ionizing radiation; correctly calculate and evaluate the causal pattern of absolute and relative risks of low doses of radiation in radiation carcinogenesis (primarily leukemia and thyroid cancer in children), genetic and somatic pathology with mandatory use of <i>Hill’s nine postulates</i> and multivariate analysis based on cohort and case-control studies …” [CitationRef removed].(4) “We found overlap across the approaches and Bradford Hill viewpoints, underscoring Bradford Hill’s viewpoints’ enduring importance”; “…to elucidate Bradford Hill’s viewpoints, which remain fundamental to causal assessment”; “The comparisons highlight the overlap between Bradford Hill’s viewpoints and other approaches. This underscores the ongoing influence of Bradford Hill viewpoints in causal assessment alongside developments in causal thinking” [CitationRef removed].

: There were no time frames, official requirements, restrictions, or other external objective or subjective confounding factors in the performance of this study.