Skip Navigation


American Journal of Epidemiology Advance Access originally published online on August 28, 2007
American Journal of Epidemiology 2007 166(8):983-984; doi:10.1093/aje/kwm241
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
166/8/983-a    most recent
kwm241v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Goldie, S. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J. J.
Right arrow Articles by Goldie, S. J.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

American Journal of Epidemiology © The Author 2007. Published by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

THE AUTHORS REPLY

Jane J. Kim1, Eduardo L. Franco2, Natasha K. Stout1 and Sue J. Goldie1

1 Program in Health Decision Science, Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115
2 Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2T5

(e-mail: jkim@hsph.harvard.edu)

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

We thank Drs. Basu and Galvani for their observations (1) on our paper (2). However, we disagree with several of their comments. We did not assert that our multiparameter likelihood-based approach was superior to alternative calibration techniques, including Bayesian approaches. Rather, we emphasized the lack of consensus on an ideal approach, credited the "theoretical appeal" of Bayesian methods, and discussed the limitations . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?