Evaluation of the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the 'target experiment' concept in studies of exposures: Rationale and preliminary instrument development
- PMID: 30125855
- PMCID: PMC9581061
- DOI: 10.1016/j.envint.2018.08.018
Evaluation of the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) and the 'target experiment' concept in studies of exposures: Rationale and preliminary instrument development
Abstract
Assessing the risk of bias (RoB) of individual studies is a critical part in determining the certainty of a body of evidence from non-randomized studies (NRS) that evaluate potential health effects due to environmental exposures. The recently released RoB in NRS of Interventions (ROBINS-I) instrument has undergone careful development for health interventions. Using the fundamental design of ROBINS-I, which includes evaluating RoB against an ideal target trial, we explored developing a version of the instrument to evaluate RoB in exposure studies. During three sequential rounds of assessment, two or three raters (evaluators) independently applied ROBINS-I to studies from two systematic reviews and one case-study protocol that evaluated the relationship between environmental exposures and health outcomes. Feedback from raters, methodologists, and topic-specific experts informed important modifications to tailor the instrument to exposure studies. We identified the following areas of distinction for the modified instrument: terminology, formulation of the ideal target randomized experiment, guidance for cross-sectional studies and exposure assessment (both quality of measurement method and concern for potential exposure misclassification), and evaluation of issues related to study sensitivity. Using the target experiment approach significantly impacts the process for how environmental and occupational health studies are considered in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence-synthesis framework.
Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest
The authors declare they have no competing financial interests with respect to this manuscript, or its content, or subject matter.
The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Figures
References
-
- ACROBAT-NRSI A Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool for non-randomized studies of interventions. https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/, Accessed date: 24 September 2014.
-
- Authority EFS, 2015. Tools For Critically Appraising Different Study Designs, Systematic Review and Literature Searches. 12(7) EFSA Supporting Publication.
-
- Cochran WG, Chambers SP, 1965. The planning of observational studies of human populations. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 128 (2), 234–266.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources