Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37637021›Full record

ArticleGlobal epidemiology2022

Considerations towards the better integration of epidemiology into quantitative risk assessment.

Sandrine E Déglin, Igor Burstyn, Connie L Chen, David J Miller, Matthew O Gribble, Ali K Hamade, Ellen T Chang, Raghavendhran Avanasi, Denali Boon, Jennifer Reed

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Global epidemiology, 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

10 authors.

Sandrine E DéglinHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Igor BurstynDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, United States of America.
Connie L ChenHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, United States of America.
David J MillerU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Matthew O GribbleDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham School of Public Health, Birmingham, AL, United States of America.
Ali K HamadeOregon Health Authority, Portland, OR, United States of America.
Ellen T ChangCenter for Health Sciences, Exponent, Inc., Menlo Park, CA, United States of America.
Raghavendhran AvanasiSyngenta Crop Protection, LLC., Greensboro, NC, United States of America.
Denali BoonCorteva Agriscience, Indianapolis, IN, United States of America.
Jennifer ReedBayer Crop Science, Chesterfield, MO, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Environmental epidemiology has proven critical to study various associations between environmental exposures and adverse human health effects. However, there is a perception that it often does not sufficiently inform quantitative risk assessment. To help address this concern, in 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute initiated a project engaging the epidemiology, exposure science, and risk assessment communities with tripartite representation from government agencies, industry, and academia, in a dialogue on the use of environmental epidemiology for quantitative risk assessment and public health decision making. As part of this project, four meetings attended by experts in epidemiology, exposure science, toxicology, statistics, and risk assessment, as well as one additional meeting engaging funding agencies, were organized to explore incentives and barriers to realizing the full potential of epidemiological data in quantitative risk assessment. A set of questions was shared with workshop participants prior to the meetings, and two case studies were used to support the discussion. Five key ideas emerged from these meetings as areas of desired improvement to ensure that human data can more consistently become an integral part of quantitative risk assessment: 1) reducing confirmation and publication bias, 2) increasing communication with funding agencies to raise awareness of research needs, 3) developing alternative funding channels targeted to support quantitative risk assessment, 4) making data available for reuse and analysis, and 5) developing cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral interactions, collaborations, and training. We explored and integrated these themes into a roadmap illustrating the need for a multi-stakeholder effort to ensure that epidemiological data can fully contribute to the quantitative evaluation of human health risks, and to build confidence in a reliable decision-making process that leverages the totality of scientific evidence.

Identifiers

PMID37637021
PMCPMC10445996

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.