Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28859697›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2017

O'Connor et al. systematic review regarding animal feeding operations and public health: critical flaws may compromise conclusions.

Keeve E Nachman, Juleen Lam, Leah H Schinasi, Tara C Smith, Beth J Feingold, Joan A Casey

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. "Ag-Gag" Laws: Evolution, Resurgence, and Public Health Implications.New solutions : a journal of environmental and occupational health policy : NS · 2019
    Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Keeve E NachmanJohns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. knachman@jhu.edu.
Juleen LamProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of OB/GYN & RS, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Leah H SchinasiDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Dornsife School of Public Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Tara C SmithDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Iowa College of Public Health, 145N. Riverside Drive, Iowa City, IA, USA.
Beth J FeingoldDepartment of Environmental Health Sciences, University at Albany School of Public Health, State University of New York, Rensselaer, NY, USA.
Joan A CaseySchool of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this comment, we summarize several scientific concerns with the recently published systematic review from O'Connor and colleagues that examined the relationship between proximity to animal-feeding operations and health of individuals in nearby communities. The authors utilized a bias tool not designed for environmental health research, erroneously excluded important studies, and incorrectly interpreted others. As a result, the conclusions drawn in the review misrepresent the evidence from the published literature, limiting its value to policymakers, researchers, and the public.

Indexed as

Animal FeedPublic HealthAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID28859697
PMCPMC5580209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.