A risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: A users' guide to its application in the context of GRADE

Morgan, Rebecca L.; Thayer, Kristina A.; Santesso, Nancy; Holloway, Alison C.; Blain, Robyn; Eftim, Sorina E.; Goldstone, Alexandra E.; Ross, Pam; Ansari, Mohammed; Akl, Elie A.; Filippini, Tommaso; Hansell, Anna; Meerpohl, Joerg J; Mustafa, Reem A.; Verbeek, Jos; Vinceti, Marco; Whaley, Paul; Schünemann, Holger J.

doi:10.1016/j.envint.2018.11.004

Cited by 176 publications

(163 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The tool consisted of six domains: confounding, selection bias, exposure assessment, outcome assessment, missing data and selective reporting, each including one to four subdomains. In total, 13 sub-domains ( Morgan et al, 2019 ) were each rated as low, moderate or high risk of bias. If any one sub-domain was rated medium or high RoB then the domain was rated similarly.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term exposure to NO2 and O3 and all-cause and respiratory mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Huangfu

Atkinson

2020

Environment International

288

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Highlights 46 cohort studies assessed long-term concentrations of NO2 and O3 and mortality. Meta-analysis of 24 studies found increased risk of death associated with NO2. Weak associations were observed for peak period O3 and mortality. High levels of heterogeneity were observed. Certainty in NO2 associations with mortality was generally low/moderate.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Long-term exposure to NO2 and O3 and all-cause and respiratory mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Huangfu

Atkinson

2020

Environment International

288

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also performed sensitivity analyses by excluding each study and repeating the analysis to estimate the impact. Finally, we graded the credibility of the pooled evidence based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) working group guidelines 60 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Greenspace with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of epidemiological studies up to 2020

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Several reviews have been conducted to assess the association between greenspace and overweight or obesity, but the conclusions were inconsistent. However, an updated comprehensive review and meta-analysis is warranted, because several high-quality papers have been published more recently. The objectives of this study are to systematically and quantitatively assess the evidence for a link between greenspace with overweight/obesity and to make specific recommendations for further research. We searched three English language databases, four Chinese language databases and the reference lists of previously published reviews for epidemiological studies on greenspace and overweight/obesity published before January 2020. We developed inclusion criteria, screened the literature and extracted key data from selected papers. We assessed methodological quality and risk of bias, and we graded the credibility of the pooled evidence. We also performed sensitivity analyses. Fifty-seven records met our inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Most studies were cross-sectional designs (81%) and were from developed nations (88%). More than half (55%) of the included studies found beneficial associations between greenspace and overweight/obesity in overall or subpopulations. Our meta-analytical results showed that greater normalized difference vegetation index was associated with lower odds of overweight/obesity in a statistically significant fashion (odds ratio [OR]: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.91) but not residential proximity to greenspace (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.00), proportion of greenspace (OR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.85, 1.08) or number of parks in an area (OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.97, 1.01). However, we detected high between-study heterogeneity in two of the four meta-analyses, which reduced the credibility of the pooled evidence. Current evidence indicates that there might be an association between greater access to greenspace and lower odds of overweight/obesity. However, additional high-quality studies are needed to more definitively assess the evidence for a causal association.

show abstract

“…Finally, robustness of findings will be assessed using a standardised tool (eg, Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Exposures). 34 …”

Section: Methods and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Health risk behaviours among migrants by duration of residence: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionInternational migrants’ health has often been found to deteriorate in new countries, partly due to changes in health risk behaviours such as alcohol consumption, tobacco use, physical inactivity, and poor dietary habits. However, limited efforts have been made to comprehensively evaluate the extent to which migrants adopt unhealthy risk behaviours with longer duration of residence. This systematic review and meta-analysis will summarise evidence on international migrants’ behavioural patterns by duration of residence in multiple country contexts.Methods and analysisPubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest databases will be searched for quantitative or mixed-method observational studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2019. Studies comparing foreign-born individuals by duration of residence will be included. Information on study characteristics, descriptive statistics and measures of effect will be extracted. All included studies will be quality assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The review will include narrative synthesis and, if sufficient and comparable data are available, random effects meta-analyses. The review will be conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required since previously published information from peer-reviewed studies will be assessed. The results of this review will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. Other forms of dissemination will include communication to broader audiences using well-established channels, including through university-based press releases. Progress will be regularly updated on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews to ensure full transparency.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018108881

show abstract

A risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: A users' guide to its application in the context of GRADE

Cited by 176 publications

References 30 publications

Long-term exposure to NO2 and O3 and all-cause and respiratory mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Long-term exposure to NO2 and O3 and all-cause and respiratory mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Greenspace with overweight and obesity: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of epidemiological studies up to 2020

Health risk behaviours among migrants by duration of residence: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About