Literature DB >> 27156196

Study sensitivity: Evaluating the ability to detect effects in systematic reviews of chemical exposures.

Glinda S Cooper1, Ruth M Lunn2, Marlene Ågerstrand3, Barbara S Glenn4, Andrew D Kraft4, April M Luke4, Jennifer M Ratcliffe5.   

Abstract

A critical step in systematic reviews of potential health hazards is the structured evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of the included studies; risk of bias is a term often used to represent this process, specifically with respect to the evaluation of systematic errors that can lead to inaccurate (biased) results (i.e. focusing on internal validity). Systematic review methods developed in the clinical medicine arena have been adapted for use in evaluating environmental health hazards; this expansion raises questions about the scope of risk of bias tools and the extent to which they capture the elements that can affect the interpretation of results from environmental and occupational epidemiology studies and in vivo animal toxicology studies, (the studies typically available for assessment of risk of chemicals). One such element, described here as "sensitivity", is a measure of the ability of a study to detect a true effect or hazard. This concept is similar to the concept of the sensitivity of an assay; an insensitive study may fail to show a difference that truly exists, leading to a false conclusion of no effect. Factors relating to study sensitivity should be evaluated in a systematic manner with the same rigor as the evaluation of other elements within a risk of bias framework. We discuss the importance of this component for the interpretation of individual studies, examine approaches proposed or in use to address it, and describe how it relates to other evaluation components. The evaluation domains contained within a risk of bias tool can include, or can be modified to include, some features relating to study sensitivity; the explicit inclusion of these sensitivity criteria with the same rigor and at the same stage of study evaluation as other bias-related criteria can improve the evaluation process. In some cases, these and other features may be better addressed through a separate sensitivity domain. The combined evaluation of risk of bias and sensitivity can be used to identify the most informative studies, to evaluate the confidence of the findings from individual studies and to identify those study elements that may help to explain heterogeneity across the body of literature.
Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bias; Chemical hazard assessment; Environmental health; Study sensitivity; Systematic review; Validity

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27156196      PMCID: PMC5110036          DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.017

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Int        ISSN: 0160-4120            Impact factor:   9.621


  13 in total

1.  Historical cohort study of US man-made vitreous fiber production workers: I. 1992 fiberglass cohort follow-up: initial findings.

Authors:  G M Marsh; A O Youk; R A Stone; J M Buchanich; M J Gula; T J Smith; M M Quinn
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.162

2.  Comparison bias and dilution effect in occupational cohort studies.

Authors:  Stefano Parodi; Valerio Gennaro; Marcello Ceppi; Pierluigi Cocco
Journal:  Int J Occup Environ Health       Date:  2007 Apr-Jun

3.  Conducting quantitative synthesis when comparing medical interventions: AHRQ and the Effective Health Care Program.

Authors:  Rongwei Fu; Gerald Gartlehner; Mark Grant; Tatyana Shamliyan; Art Sedrakyan; Timothy J Wilt; Lauren Griffith; Mark Oremus; Parminder Raina; Afisi Ismaila; Pasqualina Santaguida; Joseph Lau; Thomas A Trikalinos
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2011-04-07       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Facilitating the use of non-standard in vivo studies in health risk assessment of chemicals: a proposal to improve evaluation criteria and reporting.

Authors:  Anna Beronius; Linda Molander; Christina Rudén; Annika Hanberg
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2014-01-30       Impact factor: 3.446

5.  Spontaneous abortions and malformations in the offspring of nurses exposed to anaesthetic gases, cytostatic drugs, and other potential hazards in hospitals, based on registered information of outcome.

Authors:  K Hemminki; P Kyyrönen; M L Lindbohm
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1985-06       Impact factor: 3.710

Review 6.  Critical periods of vulnerability for the developing nervous system: evidence from humans and animal models.

Authors:  D Rice; S Barone
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 9.031

7.  Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments.

Authors:  Andrew A Rooney; Abee L Boyles; Mary S Wolfe; John R Bucher; Kristina A Thayer
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 9.031

8.  ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions.

Authors:  Jonathan Ac Sterne; Miguel A Hernán; Barnaby C Reeves; Jelena Savović; Nancy D Berkman; Meera Viswanathan; David Henry; Douglas G Altman; Mohammed T Ansari; Isabelle Boutron; James R Carpenter; An-Wen Chan; Rachel Churchill; Jonathan J Deeks; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Jamie Kirkham; Peter Jüni; Yoon K Loke; Theresa D Pigott; Craig R Ramsay; Deborah Regidor; Hannah R Rothstein; Lakhbir Sandhu; Pasqualina L Santaguida; Holger J Schünemann; Beverly Shea; Ian Shrier; Peter Tugwell; Lucy Turner; Jeffrey C Valentine; Hugh Waddington; Elizabeth Waters; George A Wells; Penny F Whiting; Julian Pt Higgins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2016-10-12

Review 9.  The Navigation Guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes.

Authors:  Tracey J Woodruff; Patrice Sutton
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2014-06-25       Impact factor: 9.031

10.  SYRCLE's risk of bias tool for animal studies.

Authors:  Carlijn R Hooijmans; Maroeska M Rovers; Rob B M de Vries; Marlies Leenaars; Merel Ritskes-Hoitinga; Miranda W Langendam
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2014-03-26       Impact factor: 4.615

View more
  9 in total

1.  Evaluation of the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the 'target experiment' concept in studies of exposures: Rationale and preliminary instrument development.

Authors:  Rebecca L Morgan; Kristina A Thayer; Nancy Santesso; Alison C Holloway; Robyn Blain; Sorina E Eftim; Alexandra E Goldstone; Pam Ross; Gordon Guyatt; Holger J Schünemann
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2018-08-17       Impact factor: 13.352

2.  A survival analysis based volatility and sparsity modeling network for student dropout prediction.

Authors:  Feng Pan; Bingyao Huang; Chunhong Zhang; Xinning Zhu; Zhenyu Wu; Moyu Zhang; Yang Ji; Zhanfei Ma; Zhengchen Li
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2022-05-05       Impact factor: 3.752

3.  COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology.

Authors:  Olaf M Dekkers; Jan P Vandenbroucke; Myriam Cevallos; Andrew G Renehan; Douglas G Altman; Matthias Egger
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2019-02-21       Impact factor: 11.069

Review 4.  The role of epidemiology studies in human health risk assessment of polychlorinated biphenyls.

Authors:  Krista Christensen; Laura M Carlson; Geniece M Lehmann
Journal:  Environ Res       Date:  2020-12-30       Impact factor: 6.498

5.  Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations.

Authors:  Kyle Steenland; M K Schubauer-Berigan; R Vermeulen; R M Lunn; K Straif; S Zahm; P Stewart; W D Arroyave; S S Mehta; N Pearce
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 9.031

6.  The IARC Monographs: Updated Procedures for Modern and Transparent Evidence Synthesis in Cancer Hazard Identification.

Authors:  Jonathan M Samet; Weihsueh A Chiu; Vincent Cogliano; Jennifer Jinot; David Kriebel; Ruth M Lunn; Frederick A Beland; Lisa Bero; Patience Browne; Lin Fritschi; Jun Kanno; Dirk W Lachenmeier; Qing Lan; Gérard Lasfargues; Frank Le Curieux; Susan Peters; Pamela Shubat; Hideko Sone; Mary C White; Jon Williamson; Marianna Yakubovskaya; Jack Siemiatycki; Paul A White; Kathryn Z Guyton; Mary K Schubauer-Berigan; Amy L Hall; Yann Grosse; Véronique Bouvard; Lamia Benbrahim-Tallaa; Fatiha El Ghissassi; Béatrice Lauby-Secretan; Bruce Armstrong; Rodolfo Saracci; Jiri Zavadil; Kurt Straif; Christopher P Wild
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-01-01       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 7.  Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health.

Authors:  Whitney D Arroyave; Suril S Mehta; Neela Guha; Pam Schwingl; Kyla W Taylor; Barbara Glenn; Elizabeth G Radke; Nadia Vilahur; Tania Carreón; Rebecca M Nachman; Ruth M Lunn
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2020-05-15       Impact factor: 5.563

Review 8.  A novel study evaluation strategy in the systematic review of animal toxicology studies for human health assessments of environmental chemicals.

Authors:  Laura Dishaw; Erin Yost; Xabier Arzuaga; April Luke; Andrew Kraft; Teneille Walker; Kris Thayer
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2020-05-17       Impact factor: 9.621

9.  Phthalate exposure and female reproductive and developmental outcomes: a systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence.

Authors:  Elizabeth G Radke; Barbara S Glenn; Joseph M Braun; Glinda S Cooper
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 13.352

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.