Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34530289›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international2021

An approach to quantifying the potential importance of residual confounding in systematic reviews of observational studies: A GRADE concept paper.

Jos H Verbeek, Paul Whaley, Rebecca L Morgan, Kyla W Taylor, Andrew A Rooney, Lukas Schwingshackl, Jan L Hoving, S Vittal Katikireddi, Beverley Shea, Reem A Mustafa and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Increasing the utility of epidemiologic studies as key evidence in chemical risk assessment.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The effects of deep brain stimulation on sleep: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Sleep advances : a journal of the Sleep Research Society · 2024
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Jos H VerbeekDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: jos@jverbeek.eu.
Paul WhaleyLancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, UK.
Rebecca L MorganMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Kyla W TaylorNational Institute of Environment Health Science, USA.
Andrew A RooneyNational Institute of Environment Health Science, USA.
Lukas SchwingshacklMedical Center - University of Freiburg; Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Jan L HovingDepartment of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
S Vittal KatikireddiUniversity of Glasgow, UK.
Beverley SheaUniversity of Ottawa, Canada.
Reem A MustafaUniversity of Kansas Medical Center, US.
M Hassan MuradMayo Clinic, Rochester, US.
Holger J SchünemannMcMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
GRADE Working Group

Funding

Chief Scientist Office SCAF/15/02Chief Scientist Office SPHSU17Medical Research Council MC_UU_00022/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Small relative effect sizes are common in observational studies of exposure in environmental and public health. However, such effects can still have considerable policy importance when the baseline rate of the health outcome is high, and many persons are exposed. Assessing the certainty of the evidence based on these effect sizes is challenging because they can be prone to residual confounding due to the non-randomized nature of the evidence. When applying GRADE, a precise relative risk >2.0 increases the certainty in an existing effect because residual confounding is unlikely to explain the association. GRADE also suggests rating up when opposing plausible residual confounding exists for other effect sizes. In this concept paper, we propose using the E-value, defined as the smallest effect size of a confounder that still can reduce an observed RR to the null value, and a reference confounder to assess the likelihood of residual confounding. We propose a 4-step approach. 1. Assess the association of interest for relevant exposure levels. 2. Calculate the E-value for this observed association. 3. Choose a reference confounder with sufficient strength and information and assess its effect on the observed association using the E-value. 4. Assess how likely it is that residual confounding will still bias the observed RR. We present three case studies and discuss the feasibility of the approach.

Indexed as

Systematic Reviews as TopicBiasBody of evidenceCertainty of evidenceE-valueObservational studiesSensitivity analysis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.