ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2021
Invited Commentary: Theoretical Considerations and Real-World Challenges for Research on Proxy Exposures and Ovarian Reserve.
Article in American journal of epidemiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this issue of the Journal, Upson et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(1):116-124) assess urinary cadmium level as a potential environmental influence on ovarian reserve, as measured using serum follicle-stimulating hormone, in data from 1,681 US women (1988-1994). They compare 3 methods for modeling urinary proxy exposures-standardization, covariate adjustment, and covariate-adjusted standardization. Observing positive associations with all 3 approaches but higher-magnitude estimates using covariate adjustment as compared with standardization and covariate-adjusted standardization-proposed to be the result of collider-stratification bias-the authors conclude that cadmium may affect ovarian aging, and they recommend careful consideration of modeling approach. Comparisons of methodology in practice using real data are not straightforward, and additional complication arises from using a proxy outcome-serum follicle-stimulating hormone level to represent diminished ovarian reserve. In this commentary, I describe the theoretical basis for approaches for modeling urinary proxy exposures; consider potential explanations for why the approaches may yield different results in practice and describe why measurement error may play a larger role than collider-stratification bias; discuss challenges related to studies of ovarian reserve; and emphasize the importance of addressing both theoretical concerns and real-world challenges in methodological research and epidemiologic studies of ovarian reserve.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32242609What 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.