CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Challenges and recommendations on the conduct of systematic reviews of observational epidemiologic studies in environmental and occupational health

Arroyave, Whitney D., Mehta, Suril S., Guha, Neela, Schwingl, Pam, Taylor, Kyla W., Glenn, Barbara, Radke, Elizabeth G., Vilahur, Nadia, Carreón, Tania, Nachman, Rebecca M., Lunn, Ruth M.·2021·Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology
DOI 10.1038/s41370-020-0228-0PMC PMC7666644
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41370-020-0228-0

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 11 references

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. IARC. IARC monographs on the identification of carcinogenic hazards to humans: preamble. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019.
  2. NTP. Handbook for preparing the report on carcinogens monographs. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program; 2015.
  3. Radke EG, Glenn B, Galizia A, Persad A, Nachman R, Bateson T, et al. Development of outcome-specific criteria for study evaluation in systematic reviews of epidemiology studies. Environ Int. 2019;130:104884. · DOI
  4. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:380–2. · DOI · Paper page
  5. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. · DOI · Paper page
  6. Cooper GS, Lunn RM, Ågerstrand M, Glenn BS, Kraft AD, Luke AM, et al. Study sensitivity: evaluating the ability to detect effects in systematic reviews of chemical exposures. Environ Int. 2016;92-93:605–10. · DOI · Paper page
  7. Howard J, Piacentino J, MacMahon K, Schulte P. Using systematic review in occupational safety and health. Am J Ind Med. 2017;60:921–9. · DOI
  8. Lash TL, Fox MP, MacLehose RF, Maldonado G, McCandless LC, Greenland S. Good practices for quantitative bias analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2014;43:1969–85. · DOI
  9. NTP. NTP monographon the systematic review of traffic-related air pollution and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program; 2019. Report No.: NTP Monograph 7.
  10. Hamra GB, Laden F, Cohen AJ, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Brauer M, Loomis D. Lung cancer and exposure to nitrogen dioxide and traffic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:1107–12. · DOI
  11. Armstrong BG. Effect of measurement error on epidemiological studies of environmental and occupational exposures. Occup Environ Med. 1998;55:651–6. · DOI · Paper page
  12. NTP. Draft report on carcinogens monograph on night shift work and light at night. Peer Review Draft. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Toxicology Program; 2018.
  13. Radke E, Glenn B, Braun J, Cooper G. Phthalate exposure and female reproductive and developmental outcomes: a systematic review of the human epidemiological evidence. Environ Int. 2019;130:104580. · DOI
  14. Johns LE, Cooper GS, Galizia A, Meeker JD. Exposure assessment issues in epidemiology studies of phthalates. Environ Int. 2015;85:27–39. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Herbison P, Hay-Smith J, Gillespie WJ. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1249–56. · DOI · Paper page
  16. Savitz DA, Wellenius GA, Trikalinos TA. The problem with mechanistic risk of bias assessments in evidence synthesis of observational studies and a practical alternative: assess the impact of specific sources of potential bias. Am J Epidemiol. 2019;188:1581–5. · DOI
  17. Ioannidis JPA. Meta-analyses in environmental and occupational health. Occup Environ Med. 2018;75:443–5. · DOI
  18. National Research Council. Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) process. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2014.
  19. Eze IC, Hemkens LG, Bucher HC, Hoffmann B, Schindler C, Künzli N, et al. Association between ambient air pollution and diabetes mellitus in Europe and North America: systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:381–9. · DOI
  20. Stang A. Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Eur J Epidemiol. 2010;25:603–5. · DOI · Paper page
  21. Stang A, Jonas S, Poole C. Case study in major quotation errors: a critical commentary on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Eur J Epidemiol. 2018;33:1025–31. · DOI
  22. Yu L, Wang B, Cheng M, Yang M, Gan S, Fan L, et al. Association between indoor formaldehyde exposure and asthma: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Indoor Air. 2020. ePub, ahead of print. · DOI
  23. Moola S, Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E, Sears K, Sfetcu R, et al. Chapter 7: Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, editors. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer’s Manual. The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2017. https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/.
  24. Vandenbroucke JP, Broadbent A, Pearce N. Causality and causal inference in epidemiology: the need for a pluralistic approach. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45:1776–86. · DOI
  25. Honaryar MK, Lunn RM, Luce D, Ahrens W, ’t Mannetje A, Hansen J. et al. Welding fumes and lung cancer: a meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Occup Environ Med. 2019;76:422–31. · DOI
  26. Cherrie JW, Levy L. Managing occupational exposure to welding fume: new evidence suggests a more precautionary approach is needed. Ann Work Expo Health. 2020;64:1–4.
  27. NTP. Report on carcinogens, 14th edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program; 2016.
  28. Huss A, Peters S, Vermeulen R. Occupational exposure to extremely low-frequency magnetic fields and the risk of ALS: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018;39:156–63. · DOI
  29. Steenland K, Barry V, Savitz D. Serum perfluorooctanoic acid and birthweight: an updated meta-analysis with bias analysis. Epidemiology. 2018;29:765–76. · DOI
  30. Verner MA, Loccisano AE, Morken NH, Yoon M, Wu H, McDougall R, et al. Associations of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with lower birth weight: an evaluation of potential confounding by glomerular filtration rate using a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model (PBPK). Environ Health Perspect. 2015;123:1317–24. · DOI
  31. Vlaanderen J, Lan Q, Kromhout H, Rothman N, Vermeulen R. Occupational benzene exposure and the risk of lymphoma subtypes: a meta-analysis of cohort studies incorporating three study quality dimensions. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119:159–67. · DOI
  32. Checkoway H, Pearce N, Kriebel D. Selecting appropriate study designs to address specific research questions in occupational epidemiology. Occup Environ Med. 2007;64:633–8. · DOI
  33. WHO. Environmental noise guidelines for the European region. Copenhagen: World Health Organization; 2018.
  34. National Research Council. Critical aspects of EPA's IRIS assessment of inorganic arsenic: interim report. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013.
  35. Marshall G, Ferreccio C, Yuan Y, Bates MN, Steinmaus C, Selvin S, et al. Fifty-year study of lung and bladder cancer mortality in Chile related to arsenic in drinking water. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007;99:920–8. · DOI
  36. Leogrande S, Alessandrini ER, Stafoggia M, Morabito A, Nocioni A, Ancona C, et al. Industrial air pollution and mortality in the Taranto area, Southern Italy: a difference-in-differences approach. Environ Int. 2019;132:105030. · DOI
  37. Welling R, Beaumont JJ, Petersen SJ, Alexeeff GV, Steinmaus C. Chromium VI and stomach cancer: a meta-analysis of the current epidemiological evidence. Occup Environ Med. 2015;72:151–9. · DOI
  38. Gatto NM, Kelsh MA, Mai DH, Suh M, Proctor DM. Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium and cancers of the gastrointestinal tract: a meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol. 2010;34:388–99. · DOI
  39. Yuan X, Zhu C, Wang M, Mo F, Du W, Ma X. Retraction: night shift work increases the risks of multiple primary cancers in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 61 articles. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2019;28:423. · DOI
  40. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. · DOI · Paper page
  41. Rooney AA, Cooper GS, Jahnke GD, Lam J, Morgan RL, Boyles AL, et al. How credible are the study results? Evaluating and applying internal validity tools to literature-based assessments of environmental health hazards. Environ Int. 2016;92-93:617–29. · DOI
  42. Hempel S, Xenakis L, Danz M. Systematic reviews for occupational safety and health questions: resources for evidence analysis. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2016. 102 p. · DOI
  43. Rooney AA, Boyles AL, Wolfe MS, Bucher JR, Thayer KA. Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:711–8. · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Arroyave, W. D., Mehta, S. S., Guha, N., Schwingl, P., Taylor, K. W., Glenn, B., Radke, E. G., Vilahur, N., Carreón, T., Nachman, R. M., & Lunn, R. M.
ORCID
Lunn, Ruth M.
Venue
Journal of Exposure Science & Environmental Epidemiology
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-05-15
Volume
31
Issue
1
Pages
21-30
ISSN
  • 1559-0631
  • 1559-064X
DOI
10.1038/s41370-020-0228-0
PMC
PMC7666644
Cited by
33
References
11
Language
en
Licence

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