Cited by 248Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsStatistical Methods in EpidemiologyAdvanced Causal Inference Techniques

A risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: A users' guide to its application in the context of GRADE

Open access
Morgan, Rebecca L., Thayer, Kristina A., Santesso, Nancy, Holloway, Alison C., Blain, Robyn, Eftim, Sorina E., Goldstone, Alexandra E., Ross, Pam +10 more·2019·Environment International

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to explain how to apply, interpret, and present the results of a new instrument to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in non-randomized studies (NRS) dealing with effects of environmental exposures on health outcomes. This instrument is modeled on the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) instrument. The RoB instrument for NRS of exposures assesses RoB along a standardized comparison to a randomized target experiment, instead of the study-design directed RoB approach. We provide specific guidance for the integral steps of developing a research question and target experiment, distinguishing issues of indirectness from RoB, making individual-study judgments, and performing and interpreting sensitivity analyses for RoB judgments across a body of evidence. Also, we present an approach for integrating the RoB assessments within the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess the certainty of the evidence in the systematic review. Finally, we guide the reader through an overall assessment to support the rating of all domains that determine the certainty of a body of evidence using the GRADE approach.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.004

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The risk of bias of included nonrandomized comparative studies was assessed using the ROBINS-E tool.

    “The Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies—of Exposures (ROBINS-E) tool was used for nonrandomized comparative studies [19, 20].”
  • Early work by a subset of the authors considered the extent to which the ROBINS-I tool was suitable for observational studies of exposures and suggested modifications to the tool.

    “Early work by a subset of the authors considered the extent to which the ROBINS-I tool was suitable for observational studies of exposures and suggested modifications to the tool (Morgan et al., 2018; Morgan et al., 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Thayer K, Rooney A, Boyles A, Holmgren S, Walker V, Kissling G, National Toxicology Program, US Department of Health and Human Services, 2013. Draft protocol for systematic review to evaluate the evidence for an association between bisphenol A (BPA) exposure and obesity. Natl. Toxicol. Program.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morgan, R. L., Thayer, K. A., Santesso, N., Holloway, A. C., Blain, R., Eftim, S. E., Goldstone, A. E., Ross, P., Ansari, M., Akl, E. A., Filippini, T., Hansell, A., Meerpohl, J. J., Mustafa, R. A., Verbeek, J., Vinceti, M., Whaley, P., & Schünemann, H. J.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • ICF International (United States) (US)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
  • Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (GB)
  • University of Freiburg (DE)
  • University of Kansas Medical Center (US)
  • Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (FI)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Lancaster University (GB)
Corresponding author
Schünemann, Holger J.
Venue
Environment International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-01
Volume
122
Pages
168-184
ISSN
0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2901788566
Cited by
248
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 7
FWCI
13.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environment International (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Intramural Research Program of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
  • MacGRADE Centre at the McMaster University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
Keywords
risk of bias, non-randomized studies, environmental exposure, ROBINS-I, GRADE, quality of evidence, indirectness, sensitivity analysis, systematic reviews
MeSH terms
Environmental Exposure, Humans, Random Allocation, Research Design, Bias, Risk Assessment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review