Talk:Bradford Hill criteria

This article starts by claiming that the Hill criteria are a "group of minimal conditions necessary to provide adequate evidence of a causal relationship." This is false. Hill did not intend them to be 'necessary' or 'minimal' for assessing causal hypotheses, and many scholars who have subsequently commented on the criteria have noted this. Even the term 'criteria' is misleading--Hill meant these as something more like 'guidelines' or rules of thumb rather than criteria. I'm going to re-word this sentence accordingly. There are a number of other misleading claims and terminological issues that I will address. Peripattikos (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

---

100% agree. I just read the original article and Sir Hill gave proposals and opositions to his own proposals. Most of the opositions are related to methodological limitations of the technology when the study takes place. --Hedleypanama (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Extension of article - use of the criteria, and available examples in specific field

I would like to make the following changes to this article. First, I would modify and extend the second paragraph of the second section as written in the first section below. I would add the material in the second section to the end of the current article. The reference numbers in these texts from [8] through [17] refer to the documents listed and numbered at the end, below. They will, of course, be properly formatted when these items are actually moved to the article.

_________________________________________________________________________

Bradford Hill's criteria are still widely accepted in the modern era as a logical structure for investigating and defining causality in epidemiological study. However, their method of application is debated. Some proposed options include:

1. using a counterfactual consideration as the basis for applying each criterion.[2]

2. subdividing them into three categories: direct, mechanistic and parallel evidence, expected to complement each other. This operational reformulation of the criteria has been proposed in the context of evidence based medicine. [3]

3. considering confounding factors and bias [8]

4. using Hill’s criteria as a guide but not considering them to give definitive conclusions [9]

5. separating causal association and interventions, because interventions in public health are more complex than can be evaluated by use of Hill’s criteria [10] _______________________________________________________________________________

Researchers have applied Hill’s criteria for causality in examining the evidence in several areas of epidemiology, including connections between ultraviolet B radiation, vitamin D and cancer [11][12], vitamin D and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes [13], alcohol and cardiovascular disease outcomes [14], infections and risk of stroke [15], nutrition and biomarkers related to disease outcomes [16], and sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases [17]. Referenced papers can be read to see how Hill’s criteria have been applied.

____________________________________________________________________________

[8] Glass TA, Goodman SN, Hernán MA, Samet JM. Causal inference in public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2013;34:61-75.

[9] Potischman N, Weed DL. Causal criteria in nutritional epidemiology. Am J Clin Nutr. 1999 Jun;69(6):1309S-1314S.

[10] Rothman KJ, Greenland S. Causation and causal inference in epidemiology. Am J Public Health. 2005;95 Suppl 1:S144-50.

[11]Grant WB. How strong is the evidence that solar ultraviolet B and vitamin D reduce the risk of cancer? An examination using Hill’s criteria for causality. Dermatoendocrinol. 2009;1(1):17-24.

[12] Mohr SB, Gorham ED, Alcaraz JE, Kane CI, Macera CA, Parsons JE, Wingard DL, Garland CF. Does the evidence for an inverse relationship between serum vitamin D status and breast cancer risk satisfy the Hill criteria? Dermatoendocrin. 2012;4(2):152-7.

[13] Aghajafari F, Nagulesapillai T, Ronksley PE, Tough SC, O'Beirne M, Rabi DM. Association between maternal serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and pregnancy and neonatal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ. 2013 Mar 26;346:f1169.

[14] Ronksley PE, Brien SE, Turner BJ, Mukamal KJ, Ghali WA. Association of alcohol consumption with selected cardiovascular disease outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2011 Feb 22;342:d671.

[15] Grau AJ, Urbanek C, Palm F. Common infections and the risk of stroke. Nat Rev Neurol. 2010 Dec;6(12):681-94.

[16] de Vries J, Antoine JM, Burzykowski T, Chiodini A, Gibney M, Kuhnle G, Méheust A, Pijls L, Rowland I. Markers for nutrition studies: review of criteria for the evaluation of markers. Eur J Nutr. 2013 Oct;52(7):1685-99.

[17] Hu FB. Resolved: there is sufficient scientific evidence that decreasing sugar-sweetened beverage consumption will reduce the prevalence of obesity and obesity-related diseases. Obes Rev. 2013 Aug;14(8):606-19.Jag8452 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Acronym

I've been taught the acronym PUBLIC PTB. Not sure what the PTB stands for, but it's memorable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.252.148 (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bradford Hill criteria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430094823/http://people.dbmi.columbia.edu/samantha/papers/kleinberg_jbi11_preprint.pdf to http://people.dbmi.columbia.edu/samantha/papers/kleinberg_jbi11_preprint.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of the criteria - no 5, public health interventions

The article currently includes, as a suggested improvement of the Bradford Hill criteria -

5 Separating causal association and interventions, because interventions in public health are more complex than can be evaluated by use of Hill’s criteria

This is not true - COVID-19 vaccination, the most important public health intervention at present, will easily meet all criteria. Ditto for iodine fortification of salt, the most successful public health nutritional intervention of the past.

I would suggest that public health interventions which are "too complex" for the Bradford Hill criteria are simply unsuccessful or riddled with unintended consequences which have cancelled out the benefits (for example there have been nutritional attempts to reduce CVD by lowering LDL cholesterol at a population level by promoting foods high in carbohydrate and polyunsaturated oils, however lower LDL cholesterol increases the risk of type 2 diabetes, a cause of CVD, so does not reduce CVD risks to a standard that would satisfy Bradford Hill in a nutritional intervention).