. 2024 Mar 28;23:32. doi: 10.1186/s12940-024-01069-z

Table 2.

Considered characteristics regarding reproductive/children’s environmental health

Considerations applied to risk of bias or quality^a assessment tools for individual studies with regard to reproductive/ children’s environmental health	Considerations applied to systems for rating bodies of evidence with regard to reproductive/ children’s environmental health
• Is the exposure assessment method evaluated? [14, 17, 24, 25, 27–29] • Are co-exposures assessed? [17, 27, 30, 31] • Is confounding considered? [13–17]	• Are ratings assigned based on a hierarchy of study designs (i.e., experimental vs. observational studies)? [18–23] • Are developmental stages, child physiology or behaviors, or child-specific health outcomes explicitly considered in evaluating the applicability of the evidence, heterogeneity of results, or potential confounding/ biases? [17, 24–26] • As part of the directness or other domain, was the adequacy of the timing of exposure assessment and the length of follow-up considered? [24, 28, 29, 67] • How is evidence for absence of an association assessed? [28, 33–36]

Considerations applied to risk of bias or quality^a assessment tools for individual studies with regard to reproductive/ children’s environmental health

Considerations applied to systems for rating bodies of evidence with regard to reproductive/ children’s environmental health

• Is the exposure assessment method evaluated? [14, 17, 24, 25, 27–29]

• Are co-exposures assessed? [17, 27, 30, 31]

• Is confounding considered? [13–17]

• Are ratings assigned based on a hierarchy of study designs (i.e., experimental vs. observational studies)? [18–23]

• Are developmental stages, child physiology or behaviors, or child-specific health outcomes explicitly considered in evaluating the applicability of the evidence, heterogeneity of results, or potential confounding/ biases? [17, 24–26]

• As part of the directness or other domain, was the adequacy of the timing of exposure assessment and the length of follow-up considered? [24, 28, 29, 67]

• How is evidence for absence of an association assessed? [28, 33–36]

^aRisk of bias and quality assessments of individual studies were considered jointly herein