ArticleEnvironment international2026
GRADE concept article: Evaluating risk of bias in a body of evidence from studies of environmental and other exposures.
Article in Environment international, 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEvaluating the impact of bias in observational epidemiology studies is critical to systematic reviews in public health (as is the case with any study type). However, researchers have expressed concern that useful epidemiological data may not receive full consideration in some reviews due to overemphasizing potential for bias without critical assessment of its impact. This concern should be balanced against the need to appropriately assess the degree of bias in observational studies to accurately characterize their validity and reach appropriate conclusions.
objectiveIn this paper, we describe how examining bias across studies may alleviate or solidify concerns identified in individual studies. We describe how to assess the likelihood that specific sources of bias explain and/or meaningfully distort an observed association.
methodsWe followed the methods for development of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) workgroup guidance. Various sensitivity analyses are proposed to probe risk of bias in the body of evidence. Two illustrative case studies were conducted: the associations between trichloroethylene (TCE) exposure and kidney cancer occurrence and between two individual per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and changes of alanine aminotransferase (ALT) levels.
resultsSensitivity analyses can inform the potential for bias to influence the results of a body of evidence, including consideration of direction of bias, subsets/stratification, counterbalancing biases, use of positive/negative controls, and others. To incorporate these into a synthesis, consideration is needed throughout the planning and execution process: (1) Planning the systematic review; (2) Assessing risk of bias in individual studies; (3) Performing sensitivity analyses, including exploration of heterogeneity and bias impact; and (4) Determining final rating. DISCUSSION: These nuanced concepts and approaches for more accurately characterizing the magnitude and impact of bias in a body of evidence can be applied within GRADE and more broadly to systematic reviews outside that framework.
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.