Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32700049›Full record

SynthesisRadiation and environmental biophysics2020

Meta-analysis of published excess relative risk estimates.

David B Richardson, Kossi Abalo, Marie-Odile Bernier, Estelle Rage, Klervi Leuraud, Dominique Laurier, Alexander P Keil, Mark P Little

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
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

8 authors.

David B RichardsonDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA. david.richardson@unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-8550-0212
Kossi AbaloInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Paris, France.
Marie-Odile BernierInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Paris, France.
Estelle RageInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Paris, France.
Klervi LeuraudInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Paris, France.
Dominique LaurierInstitut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire, Paris, France.
Alexander P KeilDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
Mark P LittleDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.

Funding

Studies of Populations Exposed to Environmental Sources of RadiationZIACP010132 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI CAHOON, ELIZABETH · 2009 to 2025
$35.2M
Combined analysis of lung cancer among uranium minersR03OH010946 · OH · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI RICHARDSON, DAVID B · 2015 to 2016
$152k
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NIOSH CDC HHS R03 OH010946
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A meta-analytic summary effect estimate often is calculated as an inverse-variance-weighted average of study-specific estimates of association. The variances of published estimates of association often are derived from their associated confidence intervals under assumptions typical of Wald-type statistics, such as normality of the parameter. However, in some research areas, such as radiation epidemiology, epidemiological results typically are obtained by fitting linear relative risk models, and associated likelihood-based confidence intervals are often asymmetric; consequently, reasonable estimates of variances associated with study-specific estimates of association may be difficult to infer from the standard approach based on the assumption of a Wald-type interval. Here, a novel method is described for meta-analysis of published results from linear relative risk models that uses a parametric transformation of published results to improve on the normal approximation used to assess confidence intervals. Using simulations, it is illustrated that the meta-analytic summary obtained using the proposed approach yields less biased summary estimates, with better confidence interval coverage, than the summary obtained using the more classical approach to meta-analysis. The proposed approach is illustrated using a previously published example of meta-analysis of epidemiological findings regarding circulatory disease following exposure to low-level ionizing radiation.

Indexed as

Linear ModelsRadiation, IonizingRiskCardiovascular DiseasesHumansRadiation ExposureCancerCohort studiesExcess relative riskMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32700049
PMCPMC10659128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.