Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26857180›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international

How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards.

Andrew A Rooney, Glinda S Cooper, Gloria D Jahnke, Juleen Lam, Rebecca L Morgan, Abee L Boyles, Jennifer M Ratcliffe, Andrew D Kraft, Holger J Schünemann, Pamela Schwingl and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 14 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 14 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

49 citing papers in PubMed, 14 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Association between Exposure toEnvironmental health perspectives · 2017
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Andrew A RooneyOffice of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Glinda S CooperNational Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Gloria D JahnkeOffice of the Report on Carcinogens, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Juleen LamUniversity of California San Francisco, Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Rebecca L MorganMcMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abee L BoylesOffice of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Jennifer M RatcliffeIntegrated Laboratory Systems (ILS), Morrisville, NC, USA.
Andrew D KraftNational Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Holger J SchünemannMcMaster University, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Pamela SchwinglIntegrated Laboratory Systems (ILS), Morrisville, NC, USA.
Teneille D WalkerNational Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.
Kristina A ThayerOffice of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Ruth M LunnOffice of the Report on Carcinogens, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA. Electronic address: lunn@niehs.nih.gov.

Funding

Integrated Health Assessments for the National Toxicology ProgramZIAES103317 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI ROONEY, ANDREW · 2016 to 2019
$24.4M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 ES999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental health hazard assessments are routinely relied upon for public health decision-making. The evidence base used in these assessments is typically developed from a collection of diverse sources of information of varying quality. It is critical that literature-based evaluations consider the credibility of individual studies used to reach conclusions through consistent, transparent and accepted methods. Systematic review procedures address study credibility by assessing internal validity or "risk of bias" - the assessment of whether the design and conduct of a study compromised the credibility of the link between exposure/intervention and outcome. This paper describes the commonalities and differences in risk-of-bias methods developed or used by five groups that conduct or provide methodological input for performing environmental health hazard assessments: the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, the Navigation Guide, the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) and Office of the Report on Carcinogens (ORoC), and the Integrated Risk Information System of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-IRIS). Each of these groups have been developing and applying rigorous assessment methods for integrating across a heterogeneous collection of human and animal studies to inform conclusions on potential environmental health hazards. There is substantial consistency across the groups in the consideration of risk-of-bias issues or "domains" for assessing observational human studies. There is a similar overlap in terms of domains addressed for animal studies; however, the groups differ in the relative emphasis placed on different aspects of risk of bias. Future directions for the continued harmonization and improvement of these methods are also discussed.

Indexed as

Decision MakingReview Literature as TopicEnvironmental HealthHumansPublic HealthEnvironmental healthHazard assessmentInternal validityRisk of biasSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID26857180
PMCPMC4902751

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.