Response to Dr. P. Lee on Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer
Author Information
Author(s): Nicholas Wald, Howard Cuckle, Kiran Nanchahal, Simon Thompson
Primary Institution: St. Bartholomew's Hospital Medical College
Hypothesis
Is there a discrepancy between epidemiological and biochemical studies of lung cancer and passive smoking?
Conclusion
The analysis by Dr. Lee does not significantly undermine the evidence linking passive smoking to lung cancer.
Supporting Evidence
- The relative risk of lung cancer in people living with smokers was estimated to be 1.3.
- The relative risk of lung cancer in male smokers was estimated to be 14.
- The percentage excess risk of lung cancer from passive smoking is about 2%, not 10-20%.
Takeaway
The authors argue that comparing risks of lung cancer from passive and active smoking is complicated and that the actual risk from passive smoking is lower than suggested by Dr. Lee.
Methodology
The authors critique the methodology used by Dr. Lee in estimating passive smoke exposure and its effects.
Potential Biases
Potential misclassification bias in estimating the risk of lung cancer from passive smoking.
Limitations
The study relies on existing epidemiological data and does not present new experimental data.
Participant Demographics
The epidemiological studies primarily involve women who have different smoking histories compared to men.
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website