Home | About us | Editorial Board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Instructions | Online submissionContact Us   |  Subscribe   |  Advertise   |  Login  Page layout
Wide layoutNarrow layoutFull screen layout
Lung India Official publication of Indian Chest Society  
  Users Online: 501   Home Print this page  Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size


 
  Table of Contents    
LETTER TO EDITOR
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 218-219  

Methodological issues in article titled, “Prevalence and correlates of nicotine dependence among construction site workers: A cross-sectional study in Delhi”


Department of Community Medicine, PGIMER, Chandigarh, India

Date of Web Publication1-Mar-2017

Correspondence Address:
M D Bashar
Department of Community Medicine, PGIMER, Chandigarh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-2113.201307

Rights and Permissions

How to cite this article:
Bashar M D. Methodological issues in article titled, “Prevalence and correlates of nicotine dependence among construction site workers: A cross-sectional study in Delhi”. Lung India 2017;34:218-9

How to cite this URL:
Bashar M D. Methodological issues in article titled, “Prevalence and correlates of nicotine dependence among construction site workers: A cross-sectional study in Delhi”. Lung India [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Sep 19];34:218-9. Available from: http://www.lungindia.com/text.asp?2017/34/2/218/201307

Sir,

I read with great interest the article by Parashar et al.[1] on prevalence and correlates of nicotine dependence among construction site workers in Delhi. The authors had done a commendable job, but I have few issues in its methodology and serious limitations. First, the study methodology used convenient sampling which may not be reliable to estimate the prevalence at population level.[2] Convenient sampling severely undermines not only the external validity, i.e. generalizability, but also the internal validity of any study.[3] Further, those who did not give consent to participate and hence didn't participate in the study among the construction workers at the site, their profile including socio-demographic variables and nicotine dependence behaviour may be entirely different from those who participated in the study leading to selection bias. A comparison of at least sociodemographic variables of these two groups would have eliminated this bias.[2] The high prevalence of tobacco users (91%) in the current study could be due to this effect as it is a common bias seen in cross-sectional studies with low response rate as seen in the current study which has an overall response rate of 68.8% only. The authors mentioned in the limitations section that the study is at least generalizable to sampled population, but as selection of patients was done nonrandomly through convenient sampling with low overall response rate, its generalizability even to the sampled population of construction workers is doubtful.

These points severely undermine the validity of the findings of the study.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Parashar M, Agarwalla R, Mallik P, Dwivedi S, Patvagekar B, Pathak R. Prevalence and correlates of nicotine dependence among construction site workers: A cross-sectional study in Delhi. Lung India 2016;33:496-501.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
2.
Tyrer S, Heyman B. Sampling in epidemiological research: issues, hazards and pitfalls. Br J Psych Bull 2016;40:57-60.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Philip S. Cross sectional studies: advantages and disadvantages. BMJ 2014:348:g2276.  Back to cited text no. 3
    




 

Top
  
 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    References

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed331    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded40    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal