Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31864023›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international2020

RoB-SPEO: A tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.

Frank Pega, Susan L Norris, Claudine Backes, Lisa A Bero, Alexis Descatha, Diana Gagliardi, Lode Godderis, Tom Loney, Alberto Modenese, Rebecca L Morgan and 14 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 12 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 12 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 12 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. Pooled it
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

24 authors.

Frank PegaDepartment of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland. Electronic address: pegaf@who.int.
Susan L NorrisDepartment of Information, Evidence and Research, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Claudine BackesDepartment of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lisa A BeroCharles Perkins Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Alexis DescathaAP-HP (Paris Hospital "Assistance Publique Hôpitaux de Paris"), Occupational Health Unit, University Hospital of West Suburb of Paris, Poincaré Site, Garches, France; Versailles St-Quentin Univ - Paris Saclay Univ (UVSQ), UMS 011, UMR-S 1168, France; Inserm, U1168 (VIMA: Aging and chronic diseases. Epidemiological and public health approaches), UMS 011 (Population-based Epidemiologic Cohorts Unit), Villejuif, France.
Diana GagliardiInail, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, Rome, Italy.
Lode GodderisCentre for Environment and Health, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; KIR Department (Knowledge, Information & Research), IDEWE, External Service for Prevention and Protection at Work, Leuven, Belgium.
Tom LoneyInstitute of Public Health, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates; College of Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Alberto ModeneseDepartment of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Rebecca L MorganDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
Daniela PachitoEvidence-based Health, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil; Cochrane Brazil, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Marilia B S PauloInstitute of Public Health, College of Medicine & Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, United Arab Emirates; Global Health and Tropical Medicine, Instituto de Higiene e Medicina Tropical, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Paul T J ScheepersRadboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboudumc, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Vivi SchlünssenDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark; National Research Center for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Daria SgargiCesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy.
Ellen K SilbergeldDepartment of Environmental Health and Engineering, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Kathrine SørensenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Patrice SuttonProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, United States of America.
Thomas TenkateSchool of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Denise Torreão Corrêa da SilvaWorkers' Health and Human Ecology Research Center, National School of Public Health Sergio Arouca, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Yuka UjitaLabour Administration, Labour Inspection and Occupational Safety and Health Branch, International Labour Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Emilie van DeventerDepartment of Public Health, Environmental and Social Determinants of Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tracey J WoodruffProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, United States of America.
Daniele MandrioliCesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further.

methodsSelected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (P

resultsOur review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of P

conclusionsWe developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

Indexed as

Occupational DiseasesOccupational ExposureRisk FactorsWounds and InjuriesBiasHumansPrevalenceWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID31864023
PMCPMC7479507

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.