Effects of economic crises on population health outcomes in Latin America, 1981–2010: an ecological study
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • A rapid response is a moderated but not peer reviewed online response to a published article in a BMJ journal; it will not receive a DOI and will not be indexed unless it is also republished as a Letter, Correspondence or as other content. Find out more about rapid responses.
  • We intend to post all responses which are approved by the Editor, within 14 days (BMJ Journals) or 24 hours (The BMJ), however timeframes cannot be guaranteed. Responses must comply with our requirements and should contribute substantially to the topic, but it is at our absolute discretion whether we publish a response, and we reserve the right to edit or remove responses before and after publication and also republish some or all in other BMJ publications, including third party local editions in other countries and languages
  • Our requirements are stated in our rapid response terms and conditions and must be read. These include ensuring that: i) you do not include any illustrative content including tables and graphs, ii) you do not include any information that includes specifics about any patients,iii) you do not include any original data, unless it has already been published in a peer reviewed journal and you have included a reference, iv) your response is lawful, not defamatory, original and accurate, v) you declare any competing interests, vi) you understand that your name and other personal details set out in our rapid response terms and conditions will be published with any responses we publish and vii) you understand that once a response is published, we may continue to publish your response and/or edit or remove it in the future.
  • By submitting this rapid response you are agreeing to our terms and conditions for rapid responses and understand that your personal data will be processed in accordance with those terms and our privacy notice.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Spurious conclusions from a faulty analysis

    It is to be commended that the article on the effects of economic crises on population health outcomes in Latin America, by. Callum Williams et al., clearly explains the methods the authors used for the analysis. For that reason, the paper is a very good example of how not to use a specific type of research tool, the panel regression. In a panel regression, as in any time-series investigation of causality, a key issue is to adjust for time trends, so that variables are stationary series (1, 2). If this adjustment is missing, results are biased by trends in the variables. For example, the paper says that “after removing inflation and unemployment as controls from our regression analysis, GDP per capita increases were found to be associated with improvements in all mortality metrics.” This is just an spurious result, as in every country the trend in GDP per capita is a rising one and the trend in mortality is a declining one. If you put the number of Starbucks coffee-shops in the country rather than GDP per capita, it will be also associated with “improvements in all mortality metrics” as Starbucks are also increasing in number.
    Lack of adjustment for time trends in the variables in more than sufficient to make the results of the regression spurious, but the models in this paper have another major flaw: both unemployment and GDP per capita are included at the same time as explanatory variables in the models. Callum Williams and coauthors seem unaware that these two var...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Author Affiliation

    Please note that the author's correct affiliation is: Imperial College London.

    Conflict of Interest:

    None declared

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.