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
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
104884Subventions
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