Meta-Analyses of Glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Expert Panel Conclusions and Recommendations

C. Kirman, P. Cocco, G. Eslick, PJ Villeneuve, S. Hays
{"title":"Meta-Analyses of Glyphosate and Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma: Expert Panel Conclusions and Recommendations","authors":"C. Kirman, P. Cocco, G. Eslick, PJ Villeneuve, S. Hays","doi":"10.23937/2572-4061.1510044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An expert panel was assembled to support a review of a series of recent publications using a modified Delphi format. These publications were scored based on a consideration of confidence in their methods, results, conclusions, and applicability to risk-based decision making. Mean confidence scores for the papers reviewed ranged from 53 to 74 (maximum score = 100), and key strengths and concerns were identified. This review highlights the need for transparency in meta-analyses. Different conclusions were reached in available meta-analyses because of varying criteria used to select studies, selection of different risk estimates within the same study, and study availability.","PeriodicalId":174677,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Toxicology and Risk Assessment","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Toxicology and Risk Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23937/2572-4061.1510044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

An expert panel was assembled to support a review of a series of recent publications using a modified Delphi format. These publications were scored based on a consideration of confidence in their methods, results, conclusions, and applicability to risk-based decision making. Mean confidence scores for the papers reviewed ranged from 53 to 74 (maximum score = 100), and key strengths and concerns were identified. This review highlights the need for transparency in meta-analyses. Different conclusions were reached in available meta-analyses because of varying criteria used to select studies, selection of different risk estimates within the same study, and study availability.
草甘膦和非霍奇金淋巴瘤的荟萃分析:专家小组结论和建议
召集了一个专家小组,以支持使用改进的德尔菲格式审查一系列最近的出版物。这些出版物的评分是基于对其方法、结果、结论的信心以及对基于风险的决策的适用性的考虑。所审查论文的平均信心得分范围从53到74(最高分= 100),并确定了关键优势和关注点。这篇综述强调了meta分析透明化的必要性。由于选择研究的标准不同,在同一项研究中选择了不同的风险估计,以及研究的可用性,现有的荟萃分析得出了不同的结论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信