GSTDTAP  > 资源环境科学
DOI10.1289/EHP6980
Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations
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
2020-09-14
发表期刊Environmental Health Perspectives
出版年2020
英文摘要

Abstract

Background:

Increasingly, risk of bias tools are used to evaluate epidemiologic studies as part of evidence synthesis (evidence integration), often involving meta-analyses. Some of these tools consider hypothetical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) as gold standards.

Methods:

We review the strengths and limitations of risk of bias assessments, in particular, for reviews of observational studies of environmental exposures, and we also comment more generally on methods of evidence synthesis.

Results:

Although RCTs may provide a useful starting point to think about bias, they do not provide a gold standard for environmental studies. Observational studies should not be considered inherently biased vs. a hypothetical RCT. Rather than a checklist approach when evaluating individual studies using risk of bias tools, we call for identifying and quantifying possible biases, their direction, and their impacts on parameter estimates. As is recognized in many guidelines, evidence synthesis requires a broader approach than simply evaluating risk of bias in individual studies followed by synthesis of studies judged unbiased, or with studies given more weight if judged less biased. It should include the use of classical considerations for judging causality in human studies, as well as triangulation and integration of animal and mechanistic data.

Conclusions:

Bias assessments are important in evidence synthesis, but we argue they can and should be improved to address the concerns we raise here. Simplistic, mechanical approaches to risk of bias assessments, which may particularly occur when these tools are used by nonexperts, can result in erroneous conclusions and sometimes may be used to dismiss important evidence. Evidence synthesis requires a broad approach that goes beyond assessing bias in individual human studies and then including a narrow range of human studies judged to be unbiased in evidence synthesis. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP6980

领域资源环境
URL查看原文
引用统计
文献类型期刊论文
条目标识符http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/295252
专题资源环境科学
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Kyle Steenland,M.K. Schubauer-Berigan,R. Vermeulen,et al. Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations[J]. Environmental Health Perspectives,2020.
APA Kyle Steenland.,M.K. Schubauer-Berigan.,R. Vermeulen.,R.M. Lunn.,K. Straif.,...&N. Pearce.(2020).Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations.Environmental Health Perspectives.
MLA Kyle Steenland,et al."Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations".Environmental Health Perspectives (2020).
条目包含的文件
条目无相关文件。
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
查看访问统计
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Kyle Steenland]的文章
[M.K. Schubauer-Berigan]的文章
[R. Vermeulen]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Kyle Steenland]的文章
[M.K. Schubauer-Berigan]的文章
[R. Vermeulen]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Kyle Steenland]的文章
[M.K. Schubauer-Berigan]的文章
[R. Vermeulen]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享
所有评论 (0)
暂无评论
 

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。