Reply to: Concerns about the Burden of Proof studies

Résumé fourni par la source

We, together with the Global Burden of Disease Study and Burden of Proof (BoP) collaborators, have published a BoP Capstone Methods paper and suite of associated meta-analyses that introduce and apply a new framework for synthesizing evidence to evaluate relationships between selected risk factors and health outcomes 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 . The BoP approach was designed to address key problems in current analytical frameworks. To provide helpful information to users making decisions around risk exposure, the approach systematically estimates a flexible mean risk–outcome function, avoiding making strong assumptions such as log-linearity of the relationship. Complementing the mean risk–outcome relationship, BoP analysis provides a BoP risk function (BoPRF) that represents the lowest estimate of excess harmful risk associated with a risk factor, incorporating unexplained between-study heterogeneity after accounting for known variation in study design characteristics. From the BoPRF, we calculate summary risk–outcome scores and star-rating measures that present conservative estimates of the risk–outcome relationship and enable comparisons across different risk–outcome pairs.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.