论文信息 - Authors’ rebuttal to Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools” - 字舞流文

Authors’ rebuttal to Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools”

T. Woodruff | Juleen Lam | D. Goin | N. Chartres | S. Eick

[1] E. Radke,et al. Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) response to “Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools” , 2021, Systematic Reviews.

[2] Division on Earth. The Use of Systematic Review in EPA's Toxic Substances Control Act Risk Evaluations , 2021 .

[3] Dana E. Goin,et al. Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools , 2020, Systematic Reviews.

[4] Publisher's Note , 2018, Anaesthesia.

[5] T. Woodruff,et al. Developmental PBDE Exposure and IQ/ADHD in Childhood: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis , 2017, Environmental health perspectives.

[6] Jelena Savović,et al. Empirical Evidence of Study Design Biases in Randomized Trials: Systematic Review of Meta-Epidemiological Studies , 2016, PloS one.

[7] M. Miller. Agency , 2010 .

[8] Douglas G Altman,et al. Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: meta-epidemiological study , 2008, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9] Peter Herbison,et al. Adjustment of meta-analyses on the basis of quality scores should be abandoned. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10] M. Egger,et al. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. , 1999, JAMA.

[11] K. Boulding,et al. THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS , 2017 .