Developing the WCRF International/University of Bristol Methodology for Identifying and Carrying Out Systematic Reviews of Mechanisms of Exposure–Cancer Associations
- 31 October 2017
- journal article
- review article
- Published by American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) in Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
- Vol. 26 (11) , 1667-1675
Abstract
Background: Human, animal, and cell experimental studies; human biomarker studies; and genetic studies complement epidemiologic findings and can offer insights into biological plausibility and pathways between exposure and disease, but methods for synthesizing such studies are lacking. We, therefore, developed a methodology for identifying mechanisms and carrying out systematic reviews of mechanistic studies that underpin exposure–cancer associations. Methods: A multidisciplinary team with expertise in informatics, statistics, epidemiology, systematic reviews, cancer biology, and nutrition was assembled. Five 1-day workshops were held to brainstorm ideas; in the intervening periods we carried out searches and applied our methods to a case study to test our ideas. Results: We have developed a two-stage framework, the first stage of which is designed to identify mechanisms underpinning a specific exposure–disease relationship; the second stage is a targeted systematic review of studies on a specific mechanism. As part of the methodology, we also developed an online tool for text mining for mechanism prioritization (TeMMPo) and a new graph for displaying related but heterogeneous data from epidemiologic studies (the Albatross plot). Conclusions: We have developed novel tools for identifying mechanisms and carrying out systematic reviews of mechanistic studies of exposure–disease relationships. In doing so, we have outlined how we have overcome the challenges that we faced and provided researchers with practical guides for conducting mechanistic systematic reviews. Impact: The aforementioned methodology and tools will allow potential mechanisms to be identified and the strength of the evidence underlying a particular mechanism to be assessed. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 26(11); 1667–75. ©2017 AACR.Keywords
All Related Versions
Funding Information
- World Cancer Research Fund (RFA 2012/620)
- Wellcome Trust Funded PhD student (102432/Z/13/Z)
- Cancer Research UK (C18281/A19169)
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2016
- SYRCLE’s risk of bias tool for animal studiesBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2014
- Instruments for Assessing Risk of Bias and Other Methodological Criteria of Published Animal Studies: A Systematic ReviewEnvironmental Health Perspectives, 2013
- The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trialsBMJ, 2011
- Hallmarks of Cancer: The Next GenerationCell, 2011
- GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendationsBMJ, 2008
- An exploratory test for an excess of significant findingsClinical Trials, 2007
- Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in EpidemiologyA Proposal for ReportingJAMA, 2000
- Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical testBMJ, 1997
- Meta-analysis in clinical trialsControlled Clinical Trials, 1986