The Burden of Proof studies: assessing the evidence of risk
-
Published:2022-10
Issue:10
Volume:28
Page:2038-2044
-
ISSN:1078-8956
-
Container-title:Nature Medicine
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nat Med
Author:
Zheng Peng, Afshin Ashkan, Biryukov Stan, Bisignano Catherine, Brauer MichaelORCID, Bryazka Dana, Burkart Katrin, Cercy Kelly M., Cornaby Leslie, Dai XiaochenORCID, Dirac M. Ashworth, Estep Kara, Fay Kairsten A., Feldman Rachel, Ferrari Alize J., Gakidou EmmanuelaORCID, Gil Gabriela Fernanda, Griswold Max, Hay Simon I.ORCID, He Jiawei, Irvine Caleb M. S., Kassebaum Nicholas J.ORCID, LeGrand Kate E.ORCID, Lescinsky Haley, Lim Stephen S., Lo JustinORCID, Mullany Erin C., Ong Kanyin Liane, Rao Puja C., Razo ChristianORCID, Reitsma Marissa B., Roth Gregory A., Santomauro Damian F., Sorensen Reed J. D., Srinivasan Vinay, Stanaway Jeffrey D.ORCID, Vollset Stein Emil, Vos Theo, Wang Nelson, Welgan Catherine A.ORCID, Wozniak Sarah S., Aravkin Aleksandr Y., Murray Christopher J. L.ORCID
Abstract
AbstractExposure to risks throughout life results in a wide variety of outcomes. Objectively judging the relative impact of these risks on personal and population health is fundamental to individual survival and societal prosperity. Existing mechanisms to quantify and rank the magnitude of these myriad effects and the uncertainty in their estimation are largely subjective, leaving room for interpretation that can fuel academic controversy and add to confusion when communicating risk. We present a new suite of meta-analyses—termed the Burden of Proof studies—designed specifically to help evaluate these methodological issues objectively and quantitatively. Through this data-driven approach that complements existing systems, including GRADE and Cochrane Reviews, we aim to aggregate evidence across multiple studies and enable a quantitative comparison of risk–outcome pairs. We introduce the burden of proof risk function (BPRF), which estimates the level of risk closest to the null hypothesis that is consistent with available data. Here we illustrate the BPRF methodology for the evaluation of four exemplar risk–outcome pairs: smoking and lung cancer, systolic blood pressure and ischemic heart disease, vegetable consumption and ischemic heart disease, and unprocessed red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease. The strength of evidence for each relationship is assessed by computing and summarizing the BPRF, and then translating the summary to a simple star rating. The Burden of Proof methodology provides a consistent way to understand, evaluate and summarize evidence of risk across different risk–outcome pairs, and informs risk analysis conducted as part of the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study.
Funder
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Bloomberg Family Foundation University of Melbourne Department of Health, Queensland Department of Health | National Health and Medical Research Council Public Health England St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health the Norwegian Institute of Public Health; the Cardiovascular Medical Research and Education Fund; the National Institute on Ageing of the NIH The funders for this study are listed in full under Christopher JL Murray
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology,General Medicine
Reference47 articles.
1. Murray, C. J. L. et al. Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 396, 1223–1249 (2020). 2. Murray, C. J. & Lopez, A. D. Global mortality, disability, and the contribution of risk factors: Global Burden of Disease Study. Lancet 349, 1436–1442 (1997). 3. Murray, C. J., Ezzati, M., Lopez, A. D., Rodgers, A. & Vander Hoorn, S. Comparative quantification of health risks: conceptual framework and methodological issues. Popul. Health Metr. 1, 1 (2003). 4. Stanley, K. Evaluation of randomized controlled trials. Circulation 115, 1819–1822 (2007). 5. Deaton, A. & Cartwright, N. Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials. Soc. Sci. Med. 210, 2–21 (2018).
Cited by
26 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|