Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38281011›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health : a global access science source2024

The methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies.

Maxime Rigaud, Jurgen Buekers, Jos Bessems, Xavier Basagaña, Sandrine Mathy, Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, Rémy Slama

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
8.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Relevance and challenges of exposome studies for environmental health research.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Maxime RigaudInserm, University of Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IAB, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, Grenoble, France.
Jurgen BuekersVITO, Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Unit Health, Mol, Belgium.
Jos BessemsVITO, Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Unit Health, Mol, Belgium.
Xavier BasagañaISGlobal, Barcelona, 08003, Spain.
Sandrine MathyCNRS, University Grenoble Alpes, INRAe, Grenoble INP, GAEL, Grenoble, France.
Mark NieuwenhuijsenISGlobal, Barcelona, 08003, Spain.
Rémy SlamaInserm, University of Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IAB, Team of Environmental Epidemiology Applied to Reproduction and Respiratory Health, Grenoble, France. remy.slama@inserm.fr.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRFlemish Institute for Technological Research · BECentro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública · ESPompeu Fabra University · ESUniversité Grenoble Alpes · FR

Funding

European Commission Grant 825417 funded by Horizon Europe research and innovation programme (HERA project)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Once an external factor has been deemed likely to influence human health and a dose response function is available, an assessment of its health impact or that of policies aimed at influencing this and possibly other factors in a specific population can be obtained through a quantitative risk assessment, or health impact assessment (HIA) study. The health impact is usually expressed as a number of disease cases or disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) attributable to or expected from the exposure or policy. We review the methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies based on human data. The main steps of such studies include definition of counterfactual scenarios related to the exposure or policy, exposure(s) assessment, quantification of risks (usually relying on literature-based dose response functions), possibly economic assessment, followed by uncertainty analyses. We discuss issues and make recommendations relative to the accuracy and geographic scale at which factors are assessed, which can strongly influence the study results. If several factors are considered simultaneously, then correlation, mutual influences and possibly synergy between them should be taken into account. Gaps or issues in the methodology of quantitative risk assessment studies include 1) proposing a formal approach to the quantitative handling of the level of evidence regarding each exposure-health pair (essential to consider emerging factors); 2) contrasting risk assessment based on human dose-response functions with that relying on toxicological data; 3) clarification of terminology of health impact assessment and human-based risk assessment studies, which are actually very similar, and 4) other technical issues related to the simultaneous consideration of several factors, in particular when they are causally linked.

Indexed as

Research DesignRisk AssessmentDose–responseEnvironmentHazardHealth impactPolicyRisk

Identifiers

PMID38281011
PMCPMC10821313
OpenAlexW4391280981

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.