Development of outcome-specific criteria for study evaluation in systematic reviews of epidemiology studies.


Journal

Environment international
ISSN: 1873-6750
Titre abrégé: Environ Int
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7807270

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
09 2019
Historique:
received: 13 11 2018
revised: 03 04 2019
accepted: 30 05 2019
pubmed: 13 7 2019
medline: 5 3 2020
entrez: 13 7 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Systematic review tools that provide guidance on evaluating epidemiology studies are receiving increasing attention and support because their application facilitates improved quality of the review, consistency across reviewers, and transparency for readers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program has developed an approach for systematic review of evidence of health effects from chemical exposures that includes structured approaches for literature search and screening, study evaluation, data extraction, and evidence synthesis and integration. This approach recognizes the need for developing outcome-specific criteria for study evaluation. Because studies are assessed at the outcome level, a study could be considered high quality for one investigated outcome, and low quality for another, due to differences in the outcome measures, analytic strategies, how relevant a certain bias is to the outcome, and how the exposure measure relates to the outcome. The objective of this paper is to illustrate the need for outcome-specific criteria in study evaluation or risk of bias evaluation, describe the process we used to develop the criteria, and summarize the resulting criteria. We used a process of expert consultation to develop several sets of outcome-specific criteria to guide study reviewers, improve consistency, and ensure consideration of critical issues specific to the outcomes. The criteria were developed using the following domains: outcome assessment, exposure measurement (specifically timing of exposure in relation to outcome; other exposure measurement issues would be addressed in exposure-specific criteria), participant selection, confounding, analysis, and sensitivity (the study's ability to detect a true effect or hazard). We discuss the application of this process to pregnancy-related outcomes (preterm birth, spontaneous abortion), other reproductive-related outcomes (male reproductive hormones, sperm parameters, time to pregnancy, pubertal development), chronic disease (diabetes, insulin resistance), and acute or episodic conditions (asthma, allergies), and provide examples of the criteria developed. For each outcome the most influential methodological considerations are highlighted including biological sample collection and quality control, sensitivity and specificity of ascertainment tools, optimal timing for recruitment into the study (e.g., preconception, specific trimesters), the etiologically relevant window for exposure assessments, and important potential confounders. Outcome-specific criteria are an important part of a systematic review and will facilitate study evaluations by epidemiologists with experience in evaluating studies using systematic review methods who may not have extensive discipline-specific experience in the outcomes being reviewed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31299560
pii: S0160-4120(18)32730-2
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.05.078
pmc: PMC8522891
mid: NIHMS1743888
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

104884

Subventions

Organisme : Intramural EPA
ID : EPA999999
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Références

Environ Int. 2015 Jul;80:41-71
pubmed: 25884849
PLoS One. 2016 Sep 21;11(9):e0161851
pubmed: 27653281
BMJ. 2012 Nov 01;345:e7031
pubmed: 23118303
JAMA. 1999 Sep 15;282(11):1054-60
pubmed: 10493204
Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:617-29
pubmed: 26857180
Environ Int. 2018 Dec;121(Pt 1):764-793
pubmed: 30336412
EFSA J. 2017 Aug 03;15(8):e04971
pubmed: 32625632
Environ Int. 2019 Jan;122:168-184
pubmed: 30473382
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Environ Int. 2019 Nov;132:104768
pubmed: 31196577
Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Oct;122(10):1007-14
pubmed: 24968373
Syst Rev. 2016 Jan 20;5:11
pubmed: 26792080
Am J Epidemiol. 2011 Aug 1;174(3):253-60
pubmed: 21749974
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):407-15
pubmed: 21247734
Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:605-10
pubmed: 27156196
Environ Health Perspect. 2012 Sep;120(9):1307-13
pubmed: 22796563

Auteurs

Elizabeth G Radke (EG)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, United States. Electronic address: radke-farabaugh.elizabeth@epa.gov.

Barbara Glenn (B)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, United States.

Audrey Galizia (A)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, United States.

Amanda Persad (A)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, United States.

Rebecca Nachman (R)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, United States.

Thomas Bateson (T)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, United States.

J Michael Wright (JM)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, United States.

Ana Navas-Acien (A)

Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, United States.

Whitney D Arroyave (WD)

Integrated Laboratory Systems, United States.

Robin C Puett (RC)

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Maryland School of Public Health, United States.

Emily W Harville (EW)

Department of Epidemiology, Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, United States.

Anna Z Pollack (AZ)

Department of Global and Community Health, College of Health and Human Services, George Mason University, United States.

Jane S Burns (JS)

Department of Environmental Health, Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health, United States.

Courtney D Lynch (CD)

Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, The Ohio State University College of Medicine, United States.

Sharon K Sagiv (SK)

Division of Epidemiology, University of California Berkeley, United States.

Cheryl Stein (C)

Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Hassenfeld Children's Hospital at NYU Langone, United States.

Glinda S Cooper (GS)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, United States; The Innocence Project, United States.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH