Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38974922›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2024

Scientific Committee guidance on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments.

EFSA Scientific Committee, Simon More, Vasileios Bampidis, Diane Benford, Claude Bragard, Antonio Hernandez-Jerez, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Konstantinos Koutsoumanis, Claude Lambré, Kyriaki Machera and 16 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 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
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Wastewater Treatment Challenges and Circular Reuse for One Health Sustainability: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Guidance on risk-benefit assessment of foods.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2024
    Article
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

26 authors.

EFSA Scientific Committee
Simon More
Vasileios Bampidis
Diane Benford
Claude Bragard
Antonio Hernandez-Jerez
Susanne Hougaard Bennekou
Konstantinos Koutsoumanis
Claude Lambré
Kyriaki Machera
Wim Mennes
Ewen Mullins
Soren Saxmose Nielsen
Josef Schlatter
Dieter Schrenk
Dominique Turck
Maged Younes
Tony Fletcher
Matthias Greiner
Evangelia Ntzani
Neil Pearce
Marco Vinceti
Martine Vrijheid
Marios Georgiadis
Andrea Gervelmeyer
Thorhallur I Halldorsson

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments. The guidance document provides an introduction to epidemiological studies and illustrates the typical biases, which may be present in different epidemiological study designs. It then describes key epidemiological concepts relevant for evidence appraisal. This includes brief explanations for measures of association, exposure assessment, statistical inference, systematic error and effect modification. The guidance then describes the concept of external validity and the principles of appraising epidemiological studies. The customisation of the study appraisal process is explained including tailoring of tools for assessing the risk of bias (RoB). Several examples of appraising experimental and observational studies using a RoB tool are annexed to the document to illustrate the application of the approach. The latter part of this guidance focuses on different steps of evidence integration, first within and then across different streams of evidence. With respect to risk characterisation, the guidance considers how evidence from human epidemiological studies can be used in dose-response modelling with several different options being presented. Finally, the guidance addresses the application of uncertainty factors in risk characterisation when using evidence from human epidemiological studies.

Indexed as

epidemiological studiesevidence integrationexposure assessmenthazard characterisationrisk assessmentrisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID38974922
PMCPMC11224774

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.