Archives

Monthly Archive for: ‘July, 2016’

New publication: SYRINA toolkit reduces ambiguity in interpreting evidence of endocrine disruption

By: Paul Whaley|July 18, 2016No Comments

We are contributing authors to a new publication which, we hope, presents a coherent framework for using existing evidence to classify chemicals as EDCs. The devil will be in the detail, of course, but one of the major contributions the paper makes is its clear and structured guidance for weighing evidence (or as we prefer to call […]

Open letter to EU Commission about proposed EDC Criteria

By: Paul Whaley|July 6, 20164 Comments

We are among a group of scientists investigating how to make best use of the best evidence to identify and classify endocrine disruptors, who have written to EU Health Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis in order to voice our concerns about the proposed criteria for identification and regulation of EDCs under the PPP and Biocides Regulations. We are concerned […]

Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text
In this practical guide, we provide an overview of current machine learning methods that have been proposed to expedite evidence synthesis. We also offer guidance on which of these are ready for use, their strengths and weaknesses, and how a systematic review team might go about using them in practice.
Letter re: stratification of meta-analyses based on risk of bias is appropriate and does not induce selection bias - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
We read, “Stratification by quality induces selection bias in a meta-analysis of clinical trials” by Stone et al. [1] with interest. We think that the authors have misunderstood the implications of their findings and that their conclusions could mislead authors of systematic reviews.
Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review: Current Medical Research and Opinion: Vol 0, No 0
Out of 7702 search results, 65 SRs were included and evaluated with the PRISMA checklist. Overall, the mean overall quality score of reported items of the PRISMA checklist was 68%. We have noticed an increasing pattern in the numbers of published SRs of in vitro studies over the last 10 years. In contrast, the reporting […]
Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate
We analyzed judgments for performance bias of 10 429 RCTs included in 718 Cochrane reviews. Overall, 1828 out of 6918 judgments (26%) for performance bias were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook and were therefore considered inadequate.
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations.
Protocol registration or development may benefit the design, conduct and reporting of dose-response meta-analysis: empirical evidence from a literature survey
Only a small proportion of DRMAs completed protocol registration or development, and those with protocol were better reported than those not. Protocol registration or development is highly desirable.