Exposure-response function dataset IEHIAS: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Category:IEHIAS :''The text on this page is taken from an equivalent page of the IEHIAS-project. ''As part of the EU-funded INTARESE project, which contri...") |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
The ERFs in this data set are likely to be useful in other assessments. Care should nevertheless be applied in using them, for their relevance and validity depends on the policy question, study design and local setting. As a minimum, the summary ERFs should be useful as a starting point in the Issue Framing to decide whether a stressor needs to be quantitatively included in the assessment, and at the Design stage in order to provide a basis foir screening and feasibility testing. | The ERFs in this data set are likely to be useful in other assessments. Care should nevertheless be applied in using them, for their relevance and validity depends on the policy question, study design and local setting. As a minimum, the summary ERFs should be useful as a starting point in the Issue Framing to decide whether a stressor needs to be quantitatively included in the assessment, and at the Design stage in order to provide a basis foir screening and feasibility testing. | ||
==File | ==File attachments== | ||
*[[File:ERF dataset.xls]] | *[[File:ERF dataset.xls]] | ||
==See also== | |||
{{IEHIAS}} | |||
Latest revision as of 19:17, 25 September 2014
- The text on this page is taken from an equivalent page of the IEHIAS-project.
As part of the EU-funded INTARESE project, which contributed to the development of this Toolbox, guidelines were devised for summarising exposure-response functions (ERFs). These guidelines were used to derive a set of 'core' ERFs for a range of environmental stressors and health outcomes, mainly targetted at issues covered by the seven case studies in the INTARESE project.
The attached spreadsheet presents the ERFs, and gives supporting information. Summary ERFs are based on studies published in the peer-reviewed international literature. In addition to the overall effect estimate, the 95% confidence intervals are given as a quantitative measure of uncertainty in the ERFs. The measure of uncertainty includes variability within studies and between studies. The spreadheet also also provides the references used in developing the ERFs.
The ERFs in this data set are likely to be useful in other assessments. Care should nevertheless be applied in using them, for their relevance and validity depends on the policy question, study design and local setting. As a minimum, the summary ERFs should be useful as a starting point in the Issue Framing to decide whether a stressor needs to be quantitatively included in the assessment, and at the Design stage in order to provide a basis foir screening and feasibility testing.