ArticleBMC medical research methodology2026
Improving the design of epidemiology studies that use biomonitoring for exposure assessment: a SciPinion panel recommendation.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEpidemiological studies that rely on biomarkers of exposure typically estimate each subject's exposure from measurements on that individual. If repeated measurements of biomarkers of exposure are obtained on an individual, they are typically averaged. This averaging helps to reduce error from within-person variability if average exposure is a better measure of the biologically effective dose than the instantaneous one. However, these analyses then often ignore the residual within-person variation in the averages of measurements. Not considering this variation can bias effect estimates and lead to inaccurate risk assessment.
methodsWe developed software ("calculators") that help design studies of continuous and binary outcomes that rely on biomarkers of exposure. An independent panel of experts was employed to peer review the models and answer questions regarding their use and best practices for the design of epidemiology studies that utilize biomonitoring data for the exposure assessment.
resultsWeb-based tools were developed to estimate the required sample sizes, number of repeated measurements, and the trade-offs between power and bias in simple linear and logistic regression models under classical (independent, additive, normally distributed, homogeneous variance) measurement error assumptions. Application of the calculators was illustrated in case studies of investigation of the associations between urinary levels of bisphenols during pregnancy and fetal growth, and urinary levels of triclosan and neurodevelopment in children. Best practices are recommended for the design of epidemiology studies that utilize biomonitoring data for the exposure assessment.
conclusionsCalculators have been developed and vetted by a panel of experts. They are designed to estimate sample size (number of individuals sampled and number of samples per individual), power and bias in epidemiological studies that use biomonitoring to assess each subject's exposure in the presence of classical measurement errors. These user-friendly tools account for measurement error and allow researchers to design more accurate and appropriately powered studies, ultimately improving quality of public health research.
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.