An Evidence-Based Medicine Methodology To Bridge The Gap Between Clinical And Environmental Health Sciences
Open accessAbstract
Physicians and other clinicians could help educate patients about hazardous environmental exposures, especially to substances that could affect their reproductive health. But the relevant scientific evidence is voluminous, of variable quality, and largely unfamiliar to health professionals caring for people of childbearing age. To bridge this gap between clinical and environmental health, we created a methodology to help evaluate the quality of evidence and to support evidence-based decision making by clinicians and patients. The methodology can also support professional societies, health care organizations, government agencies, and others in developing prevention-oriented guidelines for use in clinical and policy settings.
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?
Systematic review methods have only recently been developed and utilized in environmental health sciences.
“such methods have only recently been developed and utilized in environmental health sciences [23–30].”
From A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Multiple Airborne Pollutants and Autism Spectrum Disorder (2016) · cites this paper as [23]
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 42 · Cited by 134
Research works printed but not linked: 8
- [9]National Research Council. Phthalates and Cumulative Risk Assessment: The Task Ahead Committee on the Health Risks of Phthalates, editor. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2008. 25009926
- [1]National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the U.S. EPA., National Research Council (U.S.). Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology., National Research Council (U.S.). Division on Earth and Life Studies. Science and decisions: advancing risk assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2009.
- [2]National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Health Risks of Phthalates., National Academies Press (U.S.). Phthalates and cumulative risk assessment: the task ahead. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2008.
- [21]American Medical Association. Proceedings of the American Medical Association House of Delegates: 157th Annual Meeting Chicago: American Medical Association 2008.
- [29]West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ). 2002 3(47): 1– 11. PMC4781591 11979732
- [34]Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Bmj. 2008 4 26; 336(7650): 924– 6. 18436948 PMC2335261
- [39]Peterson E, editor. Research methods to speed the development of better evidence-the registries example Institue of Medicine Annual Meeting: Evidence-based medicine and the changing nature of health care; 2007; Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
- [40]Halvorson GC, editor. Electronic medical records and the prospect of real time evidence development Institue of Medicine Annual Meeting: Evidence-based medicine and the changing nature of health care; 2007; Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press.
- Authors
- Woodruff, T. J., Sutton, P., & The Navigation Guide Work Group
- Affiliations
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- Patrice Sutton is a research scientist at the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.
- Corresponding author
- Woodruff, Tracey J.
- ORCID
- Woodruff, Tracey J.
- Venue
- Health Affairs
- Publisher
- Health Affairs Publishing, LLC
- Published
- 2011-05
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 931-937
- ISSN
- 0278-2715 (ISSN-L)
- 1544-5208
- PMC
- PMC6663095
- OpenAlex
- W2098280994
- Cited by
- 134
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 16.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Health Affairs (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- World Health Organization
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (ES018135, P20ES018135)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
- Keywords
- environmental health, reproductive health, evidence-based decision making, patient education, reproductive age, evidence synthesis methodology
- MeSH terms
- Child, Cooperative Behavior, Decision Support Techniques, Environmental Health, Health Planning Guidelines, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Public Health, United States, Hazardous Substances, Evidence-Based Medicine, Government Regulation, Interdisciplinary Communication, Information Literacy
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
