The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk of Bias Assessments and Evidence Syntheses for Observational Epidemiologic Studies of Environmental and Occupational Exposures: Strengths and Limitations
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“In line with the triangulation approach (Arroyave et al., 2021; Lawlor et al., 2016; Steenland et al., 2020), we systematically searched for and included three categories of complementary evidence: (a) studies aimed at estimating the amount and direction of exposure measurement errors or other distortions (termed”
From The effect of exposure to radiofrequency fields on cancer risk in the general and working population: A systematic review of human observational studies - Part I: Most researched outcomes. (2024) · cites this paper as Steenland et al., 2020
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
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Sensitivity analysis in observational research: Introducing the E-value
VanderWeele, T. J., & Ding, P. (2017) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m16-2607 · Cited by 6,350
The Hazards of Scoring the Quality of Clinical Trials for Meta-analysis
Jüni, P. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 · Cited by 1,981
Negative Controls: A Tool for Detecting Confounding and Bias in Observational Studies
Lipsitch, M., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E., & Cohen, T. (2010) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181d61eeb · Cited by 1,583
Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology
Lawlor, D. A., Tilling, K., & Davey Smith, G. (2017) · International Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/ije/dyw314 · Cited by 1,129
Woodruff, T. J., & Sutton, P. (2014) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp.1307175 · Cited by 427
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., et al. (2019) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.004 · Cited by 248
Raising the standard of systematic reviews published in Environment International
Whaley, P., Letcher, R. J., Covaci, A., & Alcock, R. (2016) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2016.08.007 · Cited by 14
Research works printed but not linked: 66
- 10.1001/jama.300.9.1069 · DOI
- 10.1136/oem.55.10.651 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s41370-020-0228-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/jnci/djs035 · DOI
- 10.1289/ehp.1409044 · DOI
- 10.1080/15287398009529933 · DOI
- 10.1056/NEJMe1909053 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1470-2045(14)70316-X · DOI
- 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgaa009 · DOI
- 10.1097/00001648-199801000-00017 · DOI
- 10.1093/ije/dyv341 · DOI
- 10.7326/M19-2620 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511618758 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.envint.2016.03.017 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/jnci/22.1.173 · DOI
- 10.1080/10408444.2017.1311838 · DOI
- 10.1093/aje/kwy034 · DOI
- 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgaa001 · DOI
- 10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.4510 · DOI
- 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000457 · DOI
- Eden J, 2008, Knowing What Works in Health Care: A Roadmap for the Nation
- 10.1093/jnci/djr189 · DOI
- 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgaa004 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.aaw9460 · DOI
- Haack S, 1998, Manifesto of a Passionate Moderate
- 10.7326/M19-0699 · DOI
- 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgaa010/ · DOI
- Higgins JPT, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
- 10.1177/003591576505800503 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/oemed-2018-105447 · DOI
- 10.7326/M19-1621 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001770 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/ije/dyu149 · DOI
- 10.1093/ije/dyp280 · DOI
- 10.1289/ehp.1002879 · DOI
- 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgaa007 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.021 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.annepidem.2018.09.003 · DOI
- 10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1136/jech.2009.089524 · DOI
- 10.1080/10408444.2016.1266598 · DOI
- National Research Council, 2014, Review of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process
- 10.7326/M16-1254 · DOI
- NTP (National Toxicology Program), 2015, Handbook for Preparing the Report on Carcinogens Monographs
- NTP, 2019, OHAT (Office of Health Assessment and Translation) Handbook
- 10.1164/rccm.201006-0940OC · DOI
- Parker S. 2019. EPA staff defend NAAQS ‘weight of evidence’ from CASAC’s criticism. InsideEPA online edition. 8 November 2019. https://insideepa.com/daily-news/epa-staff-defend-naaqs-%E2%80%98weight-evidence%E2%80%99-casac%E2%80%99s-criticism [accessed 3 September 2020].
- 10.1136/oem.43.2.75 · DOI
- 10.1097/EDE.0000000000000987 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.2337/dci19-0063 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.envint.2016.01.005 · DOI
- 10.2105/AJPH.2004.059204 · DOI
- 10.1093/jnci/djz169 · DOI
- 10.1093/aje/kwz131 · DOI
- 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgaa008 · DOI
- 10.1097/00043764-198808000-00004 · DOI
- 10.1093/jnci/djs034 · DOI
- 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305068 · DOI
- 10.1002/hep.21404 · DOI
- 10.1007/s10654-010-9491-z · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/ije/dyv341 · DOI
- 10.1289/ehp.1306880 · DOI
- 10.7326/M19-1583 · DOI
- Viswanathan M, 2008, Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
- 10.1289/ehp.1002318 · DOI
- 10.7326/M19-0622 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)
Higgins, J. P. T., Morgan, R. L., Rooney, A. A., Taylor, K. W., Thayer, K. A., Silva, R. A., Lemeris, C., Akl, E. A., Bateson, T. F., Berkman, N. D., et al. (2024) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.108602 · Cited by 1,022
“Comparisons between these tools have been published previously (National Toxicology Program, 2015; Steenland et al., 2020; Eick et al., 2020; Radke et al., 2021; Eick et al., 2022) and have observed that different tools, and different ways of addressing risk-of-bias assessments, can lead to…”
Karipidis, K., Baaken, D., Loney, T., Blettner, M., Brzozek, C., Elwood, M., Narh, C., Orsini, N., Röösli, M., Paulo, M. S., et al. (2024) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2024.108983 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Steenland, K., Schubauer-Berigan, M. K., Vermeulen, R., Lunn, R. M., Straif, K., Zahm, S., Stewart, P., Arroyave, W. D., Mehta, S. S., & Pearce, N.
- Affiliations
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
- International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), Lyon, France
- Institute for Risk Assessment Science, University of Utrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands
- Division of the National Toxicology Program (NTP), NIEHS, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
- Global Observatory on Pollution and Health, Boston College, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
- Shelia Zahm Consulting, Hermon, Maine, USA
- Stewart Exposure Assessments, LLC, Arlington, Virginia, USA
- Integrated Laboratory Systems, Morrisville, North Carolina, USA
- London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
- Venue
- Environmental Health Perspectives
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2020-09
- Volume
- 128
- Issue
- 9
- ISSN
- 0091-6765
- 1552-9924
- PMC
- PMC7489341
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 8
- Language
- en
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
