Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

A standardised approach to systematically select risk-outcome pairs in environmental burden of disease research.

Created on 22 Sep 2026

Authors

Tessa M I Haverkate, Brecht Devleesschauwer, Gunn Marit Aasvang, Ricardo Assunção, Anette K Bølling, Susanne Breitner-Busch, Jurgen Buekers, Alberto Castro, Vanessa Gorasso, Hamid Y Hassen, Carla Martins, Periklis Charalampous, Juanita A Haagsma

Published in

Population health metrics. Volume 24. Issue 1. Sep 21, 2026. Epub Sep 21, 2026.

Abstract

Environmental Burden of Disease (EBoD) quantifies health impacts attributable to environmental risk factors. The methodological choice on which risk-outcome pairs to include in EBoD studies is technically and conceptually demanding, with diffuse exposures and complex causal chains. This makes transparent criteria for inclusion of risk-outcome pairs essential. In response, we developed a standardised approach for systematically and transparently selecting risk-outcome pairs within environmental burden of disease research.
The standardised approach was developed through expert elicitation and iterative discussions, ultimately resulting in five sequential steps designed to strengthen consistency and transparency: (1) define and characterise the exposure to the environmental risk factor; (2) identify potential health outcomes from the literature; (3) evaluate the strength of evidence criteria according to set criteria; (4) select risk-outcome pairs based on strength of evidence; and (5) select exposure-response functions.
By making underlying assumptions explicit, the proposed approach to the selection of risk-outcome pairs can reduce subjectivity in the selection process and support more consistent, evidence-based decisions.

PMID:
42768348
Bibliographic data and abstract were imported from PubMed on 22 Sep 2026.

Read full publication at:
Please sign in to see all details.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Reviewers' rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this publication? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 5
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement