The use of the GRADE dose-response gradient domain in nutrition evidence syntheses varies considerably

GRADE GUIDANCE 38: Updated guidance for rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient

INTRODUCTION

This updated guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation addresses rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient (DRG) observed in synthesis of intervention and exposure studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This guidance was developed using iterative discussions and consensus in multiple meetings and was presented to attendees of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group meeting for feedback in November 2022 and for final approval in May 2023.

RESULTS

The guidance consists of two steps. The first is to determine whether the DRG is credible. We describe five items for assessing credibility: a) is DRG identified using a proper analytical approach; b) is confounding the cause of the DRG; c) is there serious concern about ecological bias; d) is the DRG consistent across studies; and e) is there indirect evidence supporting the DRG. The first two of these items are the most critical. If the DRG was judged to be credible, then the second step is to apply the DRG domain and consider rating up, but only by one level due to the concern about residual confounding.

CONCLUSION

Systematic review authors should only rate up certainty in evidence when a DRG is deemed credible.

Prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants and congenital heart defects: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants has been linked to congenital heart defects (CHD), but findings of existing systematic reviews have been mixed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the epidemiological evidence on associations between prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants and CHD subtypes, based on a systematic overview of reviews ("umbrella review").

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for reviews assessing associations between prenatal exposure to criteria air pollutants and CHD. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. The certainty of the systematic review findings was graded using the Navigation Guide methodology.

RESULTS

We identified eleven systematic reviews, including eight with meta-analyses, assessing in total 35 primary studies of prenatal exposure to criteria air pollutants and various CHD subtypes. The certainty of the findings of four meta-analyses indicating an increased risk for coarctation of the aorta associated with nitrogen dioxide exposure was rated as moderate. The certainty of findings indicating positive, inverse, or null associations for other pollutant-subtype combinations was rated as very low to low, based on low precision and high statistical heterogeneity of summary odds ratios (SOR), substantial inconsistencies between review findings, and methodological limitations of the systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION

The inconsistent findings and high statistical heterogeneity of many SOR of the included systematic reviews may partly be traced to differences in methodological approaches, and the risk of bias across included reviews (e.g., inclusion criteria, systematic search strategies, synthesis methods) and primary studies (e.g., exposure assessment, diagnostic criteria). Adherence to appropriate systematic review guidelines for environmental health research, as well as rigorous evaluation of risk of bias in primary studies, are essential for future risk assessments and policy-making. Still, our findings suggest that prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants may increase risks for at least some CHD subtypes.