These studies were published in peer-reviewed medical journals. The peer review process, while not perfect, involves knowledgeable experts reviewing the protocols of studies to determine if, for example, controls were adequate.

It is not the peer-review process that is in question here, it is the knowledge available at the time with which a peer-review was conducted.


Also, the notion that medical studies done in the 70's & 80's are automatically obsolete because medical science has advanced by leaps and bounds since that time is nonsense. In some areas it most certainly has, but not across the board. For diagnosing whether a tumor is in a dog's testicle, and the basics of conducting simple epidemiological studies, I fail to see why studies of this type conducted 20-30+ years ago would be any less valid than those done today.


I certainly don't think the work is obsolete, but in the 70's the method by which veterinarians would determine tumors is by finding a palpable mass and then conducted gross histopathology at best. This would have excluded many types of neoplasia that could know be detected. Since it has been shown that the types of cancers differ dramatically between decended and undecended testicles, it brings into question whether the detection method used in the 70's would not be the reason for the difference in findings.

Even in human medicine this is an issue. In the 70's a lot of epidem. studies were conducted on the transmission and prevalence of hepatitis A and B. The conclusions of these studies are all now considered suspect since the identification of hepatitis C.

Additionally, the area of biological statistics has evolved greatly as well and models that would have been considered appropriate in the 70's would not necessarily be considered appropriate today. An important issue in epidemiology.

Originally posted by Chad Stahl:
I certainly don't think the work is obsolete, but in the 70's the method by which veterinarians would determine tumors is by finding a palpable mass and then conducted gross histopathology at best. It says right in the materials & methods section of the 1975 paper that all tumors were microscopically confirmed. Have you read these papers?
Additionally, the area of biological statistics has evolved greatly as well and models that would have been considered appropriate in the 70's would not necessarily be considered appropriate today. An important issue in epidemiology. I've read a number of epidemiological research papers in the veterinary medical literature. Number of subjects, Odds Ratio (OR) or Relative Risk (R or RR), 95% confidence intervals, are the commonly quoted statistics for this type of study. Both in the older studies in question here, and in current studies. No significant change there.

Furthermore, if we are to automatically criticize epidemiological studies of tumor risk because the studies were done 20+ years ago, then I guess such findings that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer have to be tossed out too. I mention that one in particular, since those epidemiological studies are even older still.

Laura Sanborn

I suggest that you get a copy of the papers, and read them, before continuing to criticize them with what appears to be speculation about their contents.

Laura Sanborn

I suggest that maybe you should wait until your name comes up in MedLine searches before debating the scientific merit/validity of a research article.

All the more reason you oughta know better than to criticize research when you haven't even bothered to read the reports. :rolleyes:

Laura Sanborn