ArticlePublic health2018
Evaluating biological plausibility in supporting evidence for action through systematic reviews in public health.
Article in Public health, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Active treatment vs. expectant management of patent ductus arteriosus in preterm infants: critical analysis of a meta-analysis.Italian journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- The 24-h activity cycle and cardiovascular outcomes: establishing biological plausibility using arterial stiffness as an intermediate outcome.American journal of physiology. Heart and circulatory physiology · 2023Review
- Biological plausibility in environmental health systematic reviews: a GRADE concept paper.Environment international · 2022Article
- Sedentary behavior and cardiovascular disease risk: An evolutionary perspective.Frontiers in physiology · 2022Article
- A Primer on Repeated Sitting Exposure and the Cardiovascular System: Considerations for Study Design, Analysis, Interpretation, and Translation.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this research was to develop and test methods for accessing and evaluating information on the biological plausibility of observed associations between exposures or interventions and outcomes to generate scientific evidence for action consistent with practice in systematic reviews. STUDY
designTo undertake this research, we used the example of the observed associations between antimicrobial use in food animals and increased risks of human exposures to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens of zoonotic origin.
methodsWe conducted a scoping search using terms related to biological plausibility or mechanism to identify key references. As recommended by these references, we also used expert consultation with researchers and a public health informationist. We used their recommendations, which included expert consultation, to identify mechanisms relevant to biological plausibility of the association we selected to test. We used the reviews conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines Development Group in support of reducing antimicrobial use in food animal production to populate our model for assessing biological plausibility.
resultsWe were able to develop a transparent model for biological plausibility based on the adverse outcome pathway used in toxicology and ecology. We were also able to populate this model using the WHO reviews.
conclusionsThis analysis of biological plausibility used transparent and validated methods to assess the evidence used in systematic reviews based on the observational studies accessed through searches of the scientific literature. Given the importance of this topic in systematic reviews and evidence-based decision-making, further research is needed to define and test the methodological approaches to access and properly evaluate information from the scientific literature.
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.