|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusions
Our findings emphasize the discrepancies in reporting environmental causation of cancer and the limits of inference in interpreting environmentally attributable risk estimates. Rather than achieving consensus on a single definition for the environment, we suggest the focus be on achieving transparency for any environmentally attributable risks.
Highlights
► We report definitions of the environment and attributable risk estimates over time.
► Definitions were categorized and assessed in relation to risk estimates.
► Reported environmentally attributable risk estimates ranged from 1% to 100%.
► There are limits of inference in interpreting environmentally attributable risks.
► The focus should be on transparency in the derivation of attributable risk estimates.
► Definitions were categorized and assessed in relation to risk estimates.
► Reported environmentally attributable risk estimates ranged from 1% to 100%.
► There are limits of inference in interpreting environmentally attributable risks.
► The focus should be on transparency in the derivation of attributable risk estimates.
0 comments :
Post a Comment
Your comments?
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.