ArticleEnvironmental evidence2022
Principles and framework for assessing the risk of bias for studies included in comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews.
Article in Environmental evidence, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
33 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Adverse event monitoring, assessment, and reporting in nutraceutical and phytoceutical trials for pediatric neuropsychiatric conditions: A systematic review.Journal of psychopharmacology (Oxford, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of upadacitinib for patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in immunology · 2025Pooled it
- What are the toxicity thresholds of chemical pollutants for tropical reef-building corals? A systematic review.Environmental evidence · 2023Pooled it
- A call for methodological rigour: suspending systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies on ultra-processed foods.European journal of clinical nutrition · 2026Review
- Nutrition and Culinary Education in Food Is Medicine Interventions: A Scoping Review.Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2026Article
- Wastewater Treatment Challenges and Circular Reuse for One Health Sustainability: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Review
- A Standardized Definition of Rapid Evidence Assessment for Environmental Applications.Conservation letters · 2026Article
- Clarifying Causality in iNPH: The Case for Prospective and Cross-Sector Collaboration.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2026Article
- Article
- Cancer and Environmental Xenobiotics: Mechanisms, Controversies, and Innovations.Journal of xenobiotics · 2025Review
- Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of electronic health interventions to reduce medication errors.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Student Research Involvement as a Supplementary Teaching Approach: A Prospective Evaluation.Cureus · 2025Article
- Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Driving sustainable change: A systematic map of behaviorally informed interventions to promote sustainable mobility behavior.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Comments regarding "Effectiveness of telenursing in improving quality of life in patients with heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis".Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2025Article
- Global landscape of Vibrio parahaemolyticus research: a bibliometric analysis.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2025Review
- Article
- Methodological and Systematic Errors in Systematic Reviews in Health Domain: A Systematic Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Review
- Development of the 10-question household foodwork interactional assessment questionnaire (FIA-Q10).The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The internal validity of conclusions about effectiveness or impact in systematic reviews, and of decisions based on them, depends on risk of bias assessments being conducted appropriately. However, a random sample of 50 recently-published articles claiming to be quantitative environmental systematic reviews found 64% did not include any risk of bias assessment, whilst nearly all that did omitted key sources of bias. Other limitations included lack of transparency, conflation of quality constructs, and incomplete application of risk of bias assessments to the data synthesis. This paper addresses deficiencies in risk of bias assessments by highlighting core principles that are required for risk of bias assessments to be fit-for-purpose, and presenting a framework based on these principles to guide review teams on conducting risk of bias assessments appropriately and consistently. The core principles require that risk of bias assessments be Focused, Extensive, Applied and Transparent (FEAT). These principles support risk of bias assessments, appraisal of risk of bias tools, and the development of new tools. The framework follows a Plan-Conduct-Apply-Report approach covering all stages of risk of bias assessment. The scope of this paper is comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews which address PICO or PECO-type questions including, but not limited to, topic areas such as environmental management, conservation, ecosystem restoration, and analyses of environmental interventions, exposures, impacts and risks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.