asked 114k views
4 votes
Schmeck followed up on an article with another one titled "Critics Say Coffee Study Was Flawed." List three potential sources of confounding mentioned in this aricle and comment on why these could potentially destroy any claim to cause and effect?

asked
User Brayn
by
8.6k points

2 Answers

3 votes

Answer:

no

Step-by-step explanation:

answered
User Sam Oliver
by
7.0k points
4 votes

Answer:

a) Potential Sources of confounding:

1) Pancreatic cancer patients were being compared with persons hospitalized for cancerous diseases. Coffee may likely aggravate the pains of pancreatic cancer patients unlike other cancer patients because the latter's cancer diseases were not digestive.

2) Unintended bias was introduced by investigators in questioning patients. The investigators asked questions on coffee drinking habits of those already hospitalized. This biased the drinking of coffee as a predisposing factor.

3) There could be differences among men and women because of other habits. While drinking more coffee predisposed women to cancer, according to the confounding statements, drinking even more did not have much difference in men.

Step-by-step explanation:

"CRITICS SAY COFFEE STUDY WAS FLAWED" was an article in New York Times written by Harold M. Schmeck Jr. on June 30, 1981. It attempted to critique the study of drinking coffee and its disposal to cause cancer to the drinkers.

In this article, he introduced the views of critics of the Coffee Study which was earlier published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the accompanying refutal by the researchers.

answered
User Michael Stone
by
8.2k points

Related questions

1 answer
3 votes
83.0k views
asked May 20, 2022 185k views
Mcragun asked May 20, 2022
by Mcragun
8.3k points
1 answer
11 votes
185k views
Welcome to Qamnty — a place to ask, share, and grow together. Join our community and get real answers from real people.