Leonard Evens wrote...snip...
> I'm not sure why this is called a prospective study. They didn't
> randomly divide men into exercisers and non exercisers and then follow
> them to see what happened.
Leonard...Wouldn't what you describe above be a prospective, randomized
study? If these 29+ thousand men were identified 17 years ago (say
they were all the men in a county or some similar grouping) and their
exercise habits monitored over time through inquiry, and their PCa
incidence / outcomes monitored through a tumor registry, wouldn't that
be a non-randomized prospective trial?..ron
> So this seems to me to be basically a
> retrospective study, even if the men were identified first and followed.
> It wouldn't have made any difference had they instead gone back and
> picked men out by the same criterion and then seen what happened to them.