This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.
To the Editor.—The article entitled "The incidence of Diagnosed Clinical Otosclerosis" by Pearson et al (Archives 99:288-291 [April] 1974) warrants a few comments. The first regards the importance of reporting incidence data of diagnosed clinical otosclerosis in a homogeneous group of Rochester, Minnesotans of Northern European descent. The authors stated that as "the first long-term study on the incidence of otosclerosis" these data provided information that should, among other things, "help clarify the relationship of genetics and environmental factors in the etiology of the disease." The purpose of science is to make generalizations from specific, empirical facts. A sophisticated researcher and/or clinician is very limited in the generalizations he can make, especially genetic and environmental generalizations, from the reported incidence of diagnosed clinical otosclerosis in the unrepresentative Mayo sample. Second, the authors point to the work of Guild, who reported that "histologic" otosclerosis indeed varies as a function of
DANIEL HJ. Incidence of Diagnosed Clinical Otosclerosis. Arch Otolaryngol. 1974;100(3):245. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/archotol.1974.00780040253022
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: