RoB-SPEO: A tool for assessing risk of bias in studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to occupational risk factors from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury.
Journal
Environment international
ISSN: 1873-6750
Titre abrégé: Environ Int
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 7807270
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2020
02 2020
Historique:
received:
22
02
2019
revised:
10
07
2019
accepted:
19
07
2019
pubmed:
22
12
2019
medline:
28
8
2020
entrez:
22
12
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further. Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (P Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of P We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates). For this, systematic reviews of studies estimating the prevalence of exposure to selected occupational risk factors will be conducted to provide input data for estimations of the number of exposed workers. A critical part of systematic review methods is to assess risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies. In this article, we present and describe the development of such a tool, called the Risk of Bias in Studies estimating Prevalence of Exposure to Occupational risk factors (RoB-SPEO) tool; report results from RoB-SPEO's pilot testing; note RoB-SPEO's limitations; and suggest how the tool might be tested and developed further.
METHODS
Selected existing RoB tools used in environmental and occupational health systematic reviews were reviewed and analysed. From existing tools, we identified domains for the new tool and, if necessary, added new domains. For each domain, we then identified and integrated components from the existing tools (i.e. instructions, domains, guiding questions, considerations, ratings and rating criteria), and, if necessary, we developed new components. Finally, we elicited feedback from other systematic review methodologists and exposure scientists and agreed upon RoB-SPEO. Nine experts pilot tested RoB-SPEO, and we calculated a raw measure of inter-rater agreement (P
RESULTS
Our review found no standard tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. We identified six existing tools for environmental and occupational health systematic reviews and found that their components for assessing RoB differ considerably. With the new RoB-SPEO tool, assessors judge RoB for each of eight domains: (1) bias in selection of participants into the study; (2) bias due to a lack of blinding of study personnel; (3) bias due to exposure misclassification; (4) bias due to incomplete exposure data; (5) bias due to conflict of interest; (6) bias due to selective reporting of exposures; (7) bias due to difference in numerator and denominator; and (8) other bias. The RoB-SPEO's ratings are low, probably low, probably high, high or no information. Pilot testing of the RoB-SPEO tool found substantial inter-rater agreement for six domains (range of P
CONCLUSIONS
We developed the RoB-SPEO tool for assessing RoB in prevalence studies of exposure to occupational risk factors. The tool will be applied and its performance tested in the ongoing systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31864023
pii: S0160-4120(19)30586-0
doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2019.105039
pmc: PMC7479507
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
105039Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 World Health Organization, International Labour Organization. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
Environ Int. 2018 Oct;119:558-569
pubmed: 30125833
Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:617-29
pubmed: 26857180
Cancer Res Treat. 2016 Apr;48(2):825-33
pubmed: 26194373
Environ Int. 2018 Nov;120:22-33
pubmed: 30055358
BMJ. 2016 Oct 12;355:i4919
pubmed: 27733354
Int J Audiol. 2014 Mar;53 Suppl 2:S66-75
pubmed: 24564695
PLoS Biol. 2016 Dec 21;14(12):e2001221
pubmed: 28002462
Environ Health Perspect. 2016 Jan;124(1):6-11
pubmed: 26091173
JAMA. 2017 May 2;317(17):1723-1724
pubmed: 28464166
Environ Int. 2016 Jul-Aug;92-93:556-64
pubmed: 26687863
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Environ Int. 2019 Apr;125:567-578
pubmed: 30683322
Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Oct;122(10):1028-39
pubmed: 24968388
J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Sep;66(9):973-81
pubmed: 22981249
Bull World Health Organ. 2006 Mar;84(3):198-203
pubmed: 16583078
Environ Int. 2019 May;126:804-815
pubmed: 30792021
J Eval Clin Pract. 2012 Feb;18(1):12-8
pubmed: 20698919
Environ Int. 2019 Apr;125:542-553
pubmed: 30737039
Ann Occup Hyg. 2012 Jul;56(6):671-83
pubmed: 22213048
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Nov;67(11):1239-41
pubmed: 25132356
Environ Int. 2019 Apr;125:515-528
pubmed: 30737040
Occup Environ Med. 2005 May;62(5):344-50
pubmed: 15837857
Environ Health. 2016 Jul 14;15(1):74
pubmed: 27412149
Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Aug 13;3(3):123-8
pubmed: 25197676
Am J Ind Med. 2009 Aug;52(8):645-53
pubmed: 19572325
Environ Int. 2018 Oct;119:174-185
pubmed: 29958118
PLoS Med. 2016 Apr 05;13(4):e1001987
pubmed: 27046153
Environ Int. 2018 Nov;120:382-387
pubmed: 30125855
Environ Int. 2018 Oct;119:366-378
pubmed: 30005185
J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Sep;65(9):934-9
pubmed: 22742910
Syst Rev. 2014 Apr 15;3:37
pubmed: 24731537
Environ Int. 2019 Jan;122:168-184
pubmed: 30473382
Environ Health Perspect. 2013 Sep;121(9):985-92
pubmed: 23771496
Lancet. 2016 Dec 10;388(10062):e19-e23
pubmed: 27371184
BMJ. 2015 Mar 16;350:h870
pubmed: 25775931
Environ Health Perspect. 2014 Oct;122(10):1007-14
pubmed: 24968373
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Sep;101:61-72
pubmed: 29864541
Syst Rev. 2017 Mar 3;6(1):44
pubmed: 28253938
Environ Int. 2019 Apr;125:554-566
pubmed: 30583853
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015 Sep;13(3):147-53
pubmed: 26317388