Boden and Ozonoff's undercount estimates in their recent Commentary rely on three assumptions for which no quantitative literature references are provided. Alternatively, we show that findings in both studies and published data indicate lower upper-bound estimates for the undercount range. Am. J. Ind. Med. 53:854-855, 2010. (c) 2010 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20840 | DOI Listing |
Boden and Ozonoff's undercount estimates in their recent Commentary rely on three assumptions for which no quantitative literature references are provided. Alternatively, we show that findings in both studies and published data indicate lower upper-bound estimates for the undercount range. Am.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!