SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Reporting of structural population assumptions in prevalence-based studies of animal feeding operations and community health.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Research on community health effects of Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs) frequently relies on prevalence-based effect measures, particularly for chronic respiratory outcomes. Interpreting these measures as indicators of comparative disease occurrence requires specific structural population assumptions, yet it remains unclear whether such assumptions are reported in this literature. We conducted a Mini Review of observational studies identified through a previously published systematic review and an ongoing living systematic review to assess whether prevalence studies of AFO exposures and community health explicitly reported the assumptions required to interpret prevalence ratios or prevalence odds ratios as approximations of comparative incidence. Eligible studies used prevalent disease status and reported comparative prevalence-based effect measures. We assessed whether authors discussed assumptions related to population stability, outcome duration, temporal ordering, reverse causality, and disease rarity. Across 15 included studies, none explicitly reported or discussed these structural population assumptions, despite routinely presenting covariate-controlled effect estimates. Greater transparency in reporting population-level assumptions is needed to support valid causal interpretation of prevalence-based effect measures in AFO research and to better inform public health decision-making.
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.