Abstract
Abstract
Background
In August 2021, we published in Environmental Health a Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods with the goal of providing an organizational framework for transparently evaluating epidemiological studies, a body of evidence, and resultant conclusions. Tsuda et al., the first group to utilize the Toolkit in a systematic fashion, have offered suggestions for its modification.
Main body
Among the suggested modifications made by Tsuda et al., we agree that rearrangement of Part A of the Toolkit to reflect the sequence of the epidemiological study process would facilitate its usefulness. Expansion or adaptation of the Toolkit to other disciplines would be valuable but would require the input of discipline-specific expertise. We caution against using the sections of the Toolkit to produce a tally or cumulative score, because none of the items are weighted as to importance or impact. Rather, we suggest a visual representation of how a study meets the Toolkit items, such as the heat maps used to present risk of bias criteria for studies included in Cochrane reviews. We suggest that the Toolkit be incorporated in the sub-specialty known as “forensic epidemiology,” as well as in graduate training curricula, continuing education programs, and conferences, with the recognition that it is an extension of widely accepted ethics guidelines for epidemiological research.
Conclusion
We welcome feedback from the research community about ways to strengthen the Toolkit as it is applied to a broader assemblage of research studies and disciplines, contributing to its value as a living tool/instrument. The application of the Toolkit by Tsuda et al. exemplifies the usefulness of this framework for transparently evaluating, in a systematic way, epidemiological research, conclusions relating to causation, and policy decisions.
Postscript
We note that our Toolkit has, most recently, inspired authors with discipline-specific expertise in the field of Conservation Biology to adapt it for use in the Biological Sciences.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Reference9 articles.
1. Tsuda T, Miyano Y, Yamamoto E. Demonstrating the undermining of science and health policy after the Fukushima nuclear accident by applying the Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods. Environ Health21, 77 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-022-00884-6. Accessed 12 September 2022.
2. Soskolne CL, Kramer S, Ramos-Bonilla JP, Mandrioli D, Sass J, Gochfeld M, et al Toolkit for detecting misused epidemiological methods. Environ Health20, 90 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12940-021-00771-6. Accessed 12 September 2022.
3. Parker L, Boughton S, Lawrence R, Bero L. Experts identified warning signs of fraudulent research: a qualitative study to inform a screening tool. J Clinical Epidemiology, 151; 1–17 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.07.006 Accessed 12 September 2022.
4. Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Lundh A, Hróbjartsson A. on behalf of the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. (2019). Chapter 7: Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-07#section-7-4. Accessed 12 September 2022.
5. Kramer S, Soskolne CL. Ethics Guidelines in Environmental Epidemiology: Their Development and Challenges We Face. Curr Envir Health Rpt4, 142–155 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-017-0138-z. Accessed 12 September 2022.