Integrated risk information system (IRIS) response to “assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”
Open accessAbstract
"Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools," a recent publication in this journal, applied the study evaluation approach developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as well as other approaches, to a set of studies examining polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) and neurodevelopment. They concluded that use of the IRIS approach resulted in exclusion of studies, which would lead to hazard conclusions based on an incomplete body of evidence. As scientists in the IRIS program, we support the comparison of approaches to improve systematic review methods for environmental exposures; however, we believe the IRIS approach was misrepresented. In this letter, we demonstrate that the ratings attributed to the IRIS approach were not consistent with our own application of the tool. We also clarify the use of studies rated as "low confidence" and the use of an overall study confidence rating in our systematic reviews. In conclusion, the IRIS study evaluation approach is a transparent method to inform certainty in our evidence synthesis decisions and ensures consistency in the development of IRIS health assessments.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Different risk-of-bias tools, and different ways of addressing risk-of-bias assessments, can lead to differences in conclusions of systematic reviews.
“different tools, and different ways of addressing risk-of-bias assessments, can lead to differences in conclusions of systematic reviews”
From A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E) (2024) · cites this paper as Radke et al., 2021
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 4 · Cited by 3
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [4]U.S. EPA Human health toxicity values for perfluorobutane sulfonic acid and related compound potassium perfluorobutane sulfonate 2021 36454928
- [8]National Toxicology Program Handbook for Conducting a Literature-Based Health Assessment Using OHAT Approach for Systematic Review and Evidence Integration 2019
- Authors
- Radke, E. G., Glenn, B. S., & Kraft, A. D.
- Affiliations
- Environmental Protection Agency (US)
- Corresponding author
- Radke, Elizabeth G.
- ORCID
- Radke, Elizabeth G.
- Venue
- Systematic Reviews
- Published
- 2021-08-21
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 235-235
- ISSN
- 2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8380400
- OpenAlex
- W3196209707
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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 › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
- Keywords
- Integrated Risk Information System, risk of bias assessment, study evaluation, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, brain development, environmental exposure, systematic review methodology, evidence synthesis
- MeSH terms
- Environmental Exposure, Environmental Health, Humans, Information Systems, Research Design, Bias
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
