CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Environmental Risk Factors and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: An Umbrella Review and Critical Assessment of Current Evidence from Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies

Belbasis, Lazaros, Bellou, Vanesa, Evangelou, Evangelos·2016·Neuroepidemiology
DOI 10.1159/000443146
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The pathogenesis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) involves both environmental and genetic factors. Our study aimed at summarising the environmental risk factors for ALS, assessing the evidence for diverse biases, and pinpointing risk factors with high epidemiological credibility. Methods: We searched PubMed from inception to August 20, 2015, to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies examining associations between environmental factors and ALS. For each meta-analysis, we estimated the summary effect size by the use of random-effects and fixed-effects models, the 95% CI, the 95% prediction interval (PI), and the between-study heterogeneity. We assessed the evidence of small-study effects and excess significance bias. Results: Sixteen unique meta-analyses of different risk factors and ALS were considered. Of them, 5 were statistically significant at p < 0.001 under the random-effects model. Only one factor presented robust evidence for a convincing association. This association pertained to chronic occupational exposure to lead (random-effects OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.39-2.35). Conclusions: A small number of published meta-analyses on environmental factors and risk of ALS was identified, a phenomenon that could be attributed to the challenges in studying a rare neurological disease. More observational studies with adequate sample size and study design are needed to clarify the environmental component of ALS pathogenesis.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000443146

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • A meta-analysis of 16 different exposures found lead to be the only factor with 'convincing evidence' for ALS.

    “Another meta‐analysis of 16 different exposures found lead to be the only factor with “convincing evidence”. 6”

    From Risk factors for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A regional United States case‐control study (2021) · cites this paper as [6]

  • A meta-analysis found head injury to be supported by 'suggestive evidence' for ALS, but the authors raised the concern that this observation could be due to reverse causation.

    “Head injury was one of the associations supported by “suggestive evidence”; however, the authors raised the concern that this observation could be due to reverse causation. 6”

    From Risk factors for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: A regional United States case‐control study (2021) · cites this paper as [6]

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Belbasis, L., Bellou, V., & Evangelou, E.
Venue
Neuroepidemiology
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2016
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
96-105
ISSN
  • 0251-5350
  • 1423-0208
DOI
10.1159/000443146
Cited by
82
References
6
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