ArticleNeurotoxicology and teratology
A proposal to facilitate weight-of-evidence assessments: Harmonization of Neurodevelopmental Environmental Epidemiology Studies (HONEES).
Article in Neurotoxicology and teratology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Considerations towards the better integration of epidemiology into quantitative risk assessment.Global epidemiology · 2022Article
- Translation of Exposure and Epidemiology for Risk Assessment: A Shifting Paradigm.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- A matrix for bridging the epidemiology and risk assessment gap.Global epidemiology · 2019Article
- Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on the follow-up of the findings of the External Scientific Report 'Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects'.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017Article
- Improving Concordance in Environmental Epidemiology: A Three-Part Proposal.Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2015Article
- A proposal for assessing study quality: Biomonitoring, Environmental Epidemiology, and Short-lived Chemicals (BEES-C) instrument.Environment international · 2014Article
- Chemometrics analysis for investigation of retention behavior of hazardous compounds in effluents.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to conduct weight-of-evidence assessments to inform the evaluation of potential environmental neurotoxicants is limited by lack of comparability of study methods, data analysis, and reporting. There is a need to establish consensus guidelines for conducting, analyzing, and reporting neurodevelopmental environmental epidemiologic studies, while recognizing that consistency is likewise needed for epidemiology studies examining other health outcomes. This paper proposes a set of considerations to be used by the scientific community at-large as a tool for systematically evaluating the quality of proposed and/or published studies in terms of their value for weight-of-evidence assessments. Particular emphasis is placed on evaluating factors influencing the risk of incorrect conclusions at the level of study findings. The proposed considerations are the first step in what must be a larger consensus-based process and can serve to catalyze such a discussion. Achieving consensus in these types of endeavors is difficult; however, opportunities exist for further interdisciplinary discussion, collaboration, and research that will help realize this goal. Broad acceptance and application of such an approach can facilitate the expanded use of environmental epidemiology studies of potential neurodevelopmental toxicants in the protection of public health, and specifically children's health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.