Skip to main content
BMC is moving to Springer Nature Link. Visit this journal in its new home.

Table 4 Rating of bias of studies on prenatal acetaminophen use and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

From: Evaluation of the evidence on acetaminophen use and neurodevelopmental disorders using the Navigation Guide methodology

Author

1. Selection

2. Blinding

3. Exposure

4. Outcomes

5. Confounding

6. Incomplete Data Addressed

7. Selecting Outcome

8. Financial Interest

9. Risk of Bias

Ahlqvist, 2024 (overall study)

1

1

3

1

1

1

1

1

2

Ahlqvist, 2024 (sibling-controlled study)

1

1

4

1

3

1

1

1

3

Alemany, 2021

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

Avella-Garcia, 2016

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

Baker, 2020

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Baker, 2025

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

Chen, 2019

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Gustavson, 2021 (overall study)

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

Gustavson, 2021 (sibling-controlled study)

1

1

2

1

3

2

1

2

1

Ji, 2020

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

Liew, 2014

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

Liew, 2016

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

Liew, 2019

1

1

2

1

1

2

1

1

1

Stergiakouli, 2016

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

Streissguth, 1987

1

1

2

3

2

1

1

1

1

Sznajder, 2022

1

1

2

2

2

1

1

1

1

Thompson, 2014

1

1

2

2

1

2

1

1

1

Tovo-Rodrigues, 2018

1

1

3

2

2

2

1

1

1

Woodbury, 2024

1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

Ystrom 2017

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

  1. 1. Was the strategy for recruiting participants consistent across study groups?
  2. 2. Was knowledge of the group assignments inadequately prevented (i.e., blinded or masked) during the study, potentially leading to subjective measurement of either exposure or outcome?
  3. 3. Were exposure assessment methods lacking accuracy?
  4. 4. Were outcome assessment methods lacking accuracy?
  5. 5. Was potential confounding inadequately incorporated?
  6. 6. Were incomplete outcome data inadequately addressed?
  7. 7. Does the study appear to have selective outcome reporting?
  8. 8. Did the study receive any support from a company, study author, or other entity having a financial interest in any of the exposures studied?
  9. 9. Did the study appear to have other problems that could put it at a risk of bias?
  10. Scoring: 1 – low risk of bias; 2 – probably low risk of bias; 3 – probably high risk of bias; 4 – high risk of bias
Back to article page

Environmental Health

ISSN: 1476-069X