“…DuMouchel et al apply the EBGM statistical adjustment in an attempt to correct for the role of chance in producing spurious associations and they found impressively large EBGM signal scores; however, their method is still subject to the caveats of adverse event reporting. 5,13,14 In contrast to the preceding classes of studies, our study was based on a large population of asthma drug users and entailed identification of incident cases, validation of each CSS diagnosis by two experts, and ascertainment of a large number of asthma drug user controls-elements the other studies lacked. 1,2,5,10 For the cases, we relied on expert diagnosis rather than ACR criteria as the 'gold standard,' recognizing the fact that ACR criteria are a classification rather than a diagnostic system and based on the current thinking about diagnosis of eosinophilic and vasculitic diseases in general.…”