Skip to main content
American Journal of Public Health logoLink to American Journal of Public Health
. 1989 Sep;79(9):1301–1303. doi: 10.2105/ajph.79.9.1301

Inappropriate comparisons of incidence and prevalence in epidemiologic research.

W D Flanders 1, T R O'Brien 1
PMCID: PMC1349710  PMID: 2669540

Abstract

Several epidemiologists have published papers in major medical journals in which they compare incidence rates and prevalence and use these comparisons to support conclusions regarding questions of major public health importance. Although these papers have been criticized in published correspondence, we believe that continued use and advocacy of such comparisons by some epidemiologists has created the need for a full discussion of this practice. In this commentary, we review basic differences between incidence and prevalence and show that direct comparison of these two measures is inappropriate for conceptual, theoretical, and practical reasons.

Full text

PDF
1303

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Elandt-Johnson R. C. Definition of rates: some remarks on their use and misuse. Am J Epidemiol. 1975 Oct;102(4):267–271. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a112160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Feinstein A. R., Esdaile J. M. Incidence, prevalence, and evidence. Scientific problems in epidemiologic statistics for the occurrence of cancer. Am J Med. 1987 Jan;82(1):113–123. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(87)90386-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Greenland S. Interpretation and choice of effect measures in epidemiologic analyses. Am J Epidemiol. 1987 May;125(5):761–768. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a114593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Horwitz R. I., Feinstein A. R., Horwitz S. M., Robboy S. J. Necropsy diagnosis of endometrial cancer and detection-bias in case/control studies. Lancet. 1981 Jul 11;2(8237):66–68. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(81)90412-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Hulka B. S., Grimson R. C., Greenberg B. G. Endometrial cancer and detection bias. Lancet. 1981 Oct 10;2(8250):817–817. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(81)90240-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. McFarlane M. J., Feinstein A. R., Wells C. K., Chan C. K. The 'epidemiologic necropsy'. Unexpected detections, demographic selections, and changing rates of lung cancer. JAMA. 1987 Jul 17;258(3):331–338. doi: 10.1001/jama.258.3.331. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Merletti F., Cole P. Detection bias and endometrial cancer. Lancet. 1981 Sep 12;2(8246):579–580. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(81)90960-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Moore M. R., Goldberg A., Fyfe W. M., Richards W. N. Maternal lead levels after alterations to water supply. Lancet. 1981 Jul 25;2(8239):203–204. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(81)90384-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. The epidemiologic necropsy. JAMA. 1987 Dec 11;258(22):3253–3256. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from American Journal of Public Health are provided here courtesy of American Public Health Association

RESOURCES