ArticleGlobal epidemiology2024
Improving the integration of epidemiological data into human health risk assessment: What risk assessors told us they want.
Article in Global epidemiology, 2024. 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 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three little pigs and one big bad wolf: The parable of data sharing in epidemiology.Global epidemiology · 2026Article
- Neurodevelopmental effects of methylmercury (MeHg): a review of epidemiological points of departure (PoDs), toxicological reference values (TRVs), and key uncertainties in human health risk assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Improving the design of epidemiology studies that use biomonitoring for exposure assessment: a SciPinion panel recommendation.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Survey of practices of handling exposure measurement errors in modern epidemiology: are the best practices in statistics being adopted by epidemiologists?BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Challenges in defining thresholds for health effects: some considerations for asbestos and silica.Frontiers in epidemiology · 2025Review
- Improving the integration of epidemiological data into human health risk assessment: What risk assessors told us they want.Global epidemiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the practical contributions of epidemiology studies is to inform risk assessment and management to protect public health. However, there is a perception among some that environmental and occupational epidemiology is falling short of satisfying the needs of risk assessors. The specific reasons for this are not clearly understood. To help identify the points of dissatisfaction and possible areas for mutual learning, we conducted a survey of risk assessors, seeking their opinions of epidemiology research. We present a few quantitative measures and a thematic analysis of responses to open-ended questions. Survey results suggest that some risk assessors (with some adamant exceptions) believe that epidemiology has great potential to contribute to risk assessment but can be deficient in many ways. For example, respondents identified the lack of full disclosure of methods, deficiencies in exposure assessment, the absence of comprehensive uncertainty analyses, and the failure to investigate or explore thresholds of effects as some of the common shortcomings. These could be straightforward to address. Respondents also brought up a wide collection of more complicated and subtle concerns that could lead to further improvement of useful results. We identify areas where mutually-educating interdisciplinary dialogue seems particularly promising. Epidemiology research is expensive, and risk management decisions even more so; therefore, it is desirable for the risk assessment and epidemiologic communities to work toward making epidemiologic research more useful for informing decisions.
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.