Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35321722›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2022

Authors' rebuttal to Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to "Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools".

Stephanie M Eick, Dana E Goin, Juleen Lam, Tracey J Woodruff, Nicholas Chartres

Erratum issuedAbstract readLetter
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Stephanie M EickGangarosa Department of Environmental Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Dana E GoinProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Juleen LamProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Tracey J WoodruffProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Nicholas ChartresProgram on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. nicholas.chartres@ucsf.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9659-6739

Funding

The UCSF Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals (PEEC) Children's CenterP01ES022841 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WOODRUFF, TRACEY J. · 2013 to 2018
$3.9M
NIEHS NIH HHS P01 ES022841NIEHS NIH HHS P01ES022841
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This letter responds to the US Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) program letter by Radke et al. (2021) that was published in response to the application of the IRIS risk of bias tool in our recent study "Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools." Their letter stated that we misrepresented the IRIS approach. Here, we respond to their three points raised and how we did not misrepresent their tool and also identified areas for improvement: (1) why it should be expected that different reviewers could reach different conclusions with the IRIS tool, as ratings are subject to reviewer judgment; (2) why our interpretation that "low" or "uninformative" studies could be excluded from a body of evidence was reasonable; and (3) why we believe the use of a rating system that generates an overall rating based on an individual domain or a combination of identified deficiencies essentially acts as a score and assumes that we know empirically how much each risk of bias domain should contribute to the overall rating for that study. We have elaborated on these points in our letter.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthInformation SystemsBiasHumansRisk assessmentRisk of biasSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35321722
PMCPMC8944042

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.