Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31752881›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2019

Wrangling environmental exposure data: guidance for getting the best information from your laboratory measurements.

Julia O Udesky, Robin E Dodson, Laura J Perovich, Ruthann A Rudel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Julia O UdeskySilent Spring Institute, 320 Nevada Street, Newton, MA, 02460, USA. udesky@silentspring.org.ORCID 0000-0003-4103-9318
Robin E DodsonSilent Spring Institute, 320 Nevada Street, Newton, MA, 02460, USA.
Laura J PerovichSilent Spring Institute, 320 Nevada Street, Newton, MA, 02460, USA.
Ruthann A RudelSilent Spring Institute, 320 Nevada Street, Newton, MA, 02460, USA. rudel@silentspring.org.
Silent Spring Institute · US

Funding

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development MAHHU0005-12
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnvironmental health and exposure researchers can improve the quality and interpretation of their chemical measurement data, avoid spurious results, and improve analytical protocols for new chemicals by closely examining lab and field quality control (QC) data. Reporting QC data along with chemical measurements in biological and environmental samples allows readers to evaluate data quality and appropriate uses of the data (e.g., for comparison to other exposure studies, association with health outcomes, use in regulatory decision-making). However many studies do not adequately describe or interpret QC assessments in publications, leaving readers uncertain about the level of confidence in the reported data. One potential barrier to both QC implementation and reporting is that guidance on how to integrate and interpret QC assessments is often fragmented and difficult to find, with no centralized repository or summary. In addition, existing documents are typically written for regulatory scientists rather than environmental health researchers, who may have little or no experience in analytical chemistry.

objectivesWe discuss approaches for implementing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) in environmental exposure measurement projects and describe our process for interpreting QC results and drawing conclusions about data validity. DISCUSSION: Our methods build upon existing guidance and years of practical experience collecting exposure data and analyzing it in collaboration with contract and university laboratories, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. With real examples from our data, we demonstrate problems that would not have come to light had we not engaged with our QC data and incorporated field QC samples in our study design. Our approach focuses on descriptive analyses and data visualizations that have been compatible with diverse exposure studies with sample sizes ranging from tens to hundreds of samples. Future work could incorporate additional statistically grounded methods for larger datasets with more QC samples.

conclusionsThis guidance, along with example table shells, graphics, and some sample R code, provides a useful set of tools for getting the best information from valuable environmental exposure datasets and enabling valid comparison and synthesis of exposure data across studies.

Indexed as

Quality ControlEnvironmental ExposureEnvironmental MonitoringHumansResearch DesignData validationEnvironmental chemicalsEnvironmental epidemiologyEnvironmental monitoringExposure measurementExposure scienceMeasurement errorQuality assurance/quality control (QA/QC)

Identifiers

PMID31752881
PMCPMC6868687
OpenAlexW2990732807

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.