首页> 外文期刊>Environment international >How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards
【24h】

How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards

机译:研究结果有多可信?评估内部有效性工具并将其应用到基于文献的环境健康危害评估中

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Environmental health hazard assessments are routinely relied upon for public health decision-making. The evidence base used in these assessments is typically developed from a collection of diverse sources of information of varying quality. It is critical that literature-based evaluations consider the credibility of individual studies used to reach conclusions through consistent, transparent and accepted methods. Systematic review procedures address study credibility by assessing internal validity or "risk of bias" the assessment of whether the design and conduct of a study compromised the credibility of the link between exposure/intervention and outcome. This paper describes the commonalities and differences in risk-of-bias methods developed or used by five groups that conduct or provide methodological input for performing environmental health hazard assessments: the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group, the Navigation Guide, the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) and Office of the Report on Carcinogens (ORoC), and the Integrated Risk Information System of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA-IRIS). Each of these groups have been developing and applying rigorous assessment methods for integrating across a heterogeneous collection of human and animal studies to inform conclusions on potential-environmental health hazards. There is substantial consistency across the groups in the consideration of risk-of-bias issues or "domains' for assessing observational human studies. There is a similar overlap in terms of domains addressed for animal studies; however, the groups differ in the relative emphasis placed on-different aspects of risk of bias. Future directions for the continued harmonization and improvement of these methods are also discussed. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
机译:公共卫生决策通常依赖于环境健康危害评估。这些评估中使用的证据基础通常是从各种质量不同的信息源中收集而来的。基于文献的评估必须考虑用于通过一致,透明和公认的方法得出结论的个别研究的可信度,这一点至关重要。系统评价程序通过评估内部有效性或“偏倚风险”评估研究的设计和进行是否损害了暴露/干预与结果之间联系的可信度,从而解决了研究的可信度问题。本文介绍了由五个小组开发或使用的偏见风险方法的共性和差异,五个小组进行或提供了进行环境健康危害评估的方法论建议:建议评估,制定和评估分级(GRADE)工作组,导航指南,国家毒理学计划(NTP)健康评估和翻译办公室(OHAT)和致癌物报告办公室(ORoC)以及美国环境保护局(EPA-IRIS)的综合风险信息系统。这些小组中的每个小组都正在开发和应用严格的评估方法,以整合人类和动物研究的异类集合,从而得出有关潜在的环境健康危害的结论。在评估偏倚风险问题或评估观察性人类研究的“领域”时,各组之间存在实质性的一致性。在针对动物研究的领域方面存在相似的重叠;但是,各组的相对重点不同放置在偏见风险的不同方面,还讨论了继续协调和改进这些方法的未来方向,由Elsevier Ltd.发布。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号