{"title":"对哮喘流行病学调查的解释。","authors":"P Burney","doi":"10.1002/9780470515334.ch7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Two particular issues make the interpretation of epidemiological studies in asthma problematic. The first is the lack of any clear definition of asthma. This is a perennial area of controversy. Thirty-eight years ago a Ciba Foundation guest symposium addressed this issue and suggested a solution. However, as J. G. Scadding, one of the participants of that symposium, pointed out after further consideration of the problem, what they had proposed was a description, not a definition. Since then, further attempts have been made but with little progress. They remain descriptive rather than definitive and have become, if anything, vaguer. The second problem has been the widespread failure to be precise about hypotheses or to define more precisely the hypothetical influences on asthma. Examples of this are the notions of 'inflammation' and 'atopy'. Standardization of methods for epidemiological studies of asthma is likely to provide a more rigorous framework for the comparison of results and the testing of hypotheses. Nevertheless, the development of such protocols should itself be seen as a hermeneutic device rather than an assertion of established knowledge.</p>","PeriodicalId":10218,"journal":{"name":"Ciba Foundation symposium","volume":"206 ","pages":"111-8; discussion 118-21, 157-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1997-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpretation of epidemiological surveys of asthma.\",\"authors\":\"P Burney\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/9780470515334.ch7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Two particular issues make the interpretation of epidemiological studies in asthma problematic. The first is the lack of any clear definition of asthma. This is a perennial area of controversy. Thirty-eight years ago a Ciba Foundation guest symposium addressed this issue and suggested a solution. However, as J. G. Scadding, one of the participants of that symposium, pointed out after further consideration of the problem, what they had proposed was a description, not a definition. Since then, further attempts have been made but with little progress. They remain descriptive rather than definitive and have become, if anything, vaguer. The second problem has been the widespread failure to be precise about hypotheses or to define more precisely the hypothetical influences on asthma. Examples of this are the notions of 'inflammation' and 'atopy'. Standardization of methods for epidemiological studies of asthma is likely to provide a more rigorous framework for the comparison of results and the testing of hypotheses. Nevertheless, the development of such protocols should itself be seen as a hermeneutic device rather than an assertion of established knowledge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10218,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ciba Foundation symposium\",\"volume\":\"206 \",\"pages\":\"111-8; discussion 118-21, 157-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1997-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ciba Foundation symposium\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470515334.ch7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ciba Foundation symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470515334.ch7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
摘要
两个特别的问题使得对哮喘流行病学研究的解释有问题。首先是缺乏对哮喘的明确定义。这是一个长期存在争议的领域。38年前,汽巴基金会的一次客座研讨会就讨论过这个问题,并提出了解决办法。然而,正如那次研讨会的参与者之一J. G. scadd在进一步考虑了这个问题后指出的那样,他们提出的是一种描述,而不是定义。从那时起,人们进行了进一步的尝试,但进展甚微。它们仍然是描述性的,而不是决定性的,如果有的话,它们变得更加模糊了。第二个问题是,人们普遍未能准确地提出假设,或更精确地定义假设对哮喘的影响。这方面的例子是“炎症”和“特异性”的概念。哮喘流行病学研究方法的标准化可能为比较结果和检验假设提供更严格的框架。然而,这种协议的发展本身应被视为一种解释学手段,而不是对既定知识的断言。
Interpretation of epidemiological surveys of asthma.
Two particular issues make the interpretation of epidemiological studies in asthma problematic. The first is the lack of any clear definition of asthma. This is a perennial area of controversy. Thirty-eight years ago a Ciba Foundation guest symposium addressed this issue and suggested a solution. However, as J. G. Scadding, one of the participants of that symposium, pointed out after further consideration of the problem, what they had proposed was a description, not a definition. Since then, further attempts have been made but with little progress. They remain descriptive rather than definitive and have become, if anything, vaguer. The second problem has been the widespread failure to be precise about hypotheses or to define more precisely the hypothetical influences on asthma. Examples of this are the notions of 'inflammation' and 'atopy'. Standardization of methods for epidemiological studies of asthma is likely to provide a more rigorous framework for the comparison of results and the testing of hypotheses. Nevertheless, the development of such protocols should itself be seen as a hermeneutic device rather than an assertion of established knowledge.