Additional file 1 of Assessing risk of bias in human environmental epidemiology studies using three tools: different conclusions from different tools

Additional file 1: Table S1. Description of domains measured across tools. Figure S1. Summary of risk of bias judgments (low, probably low, probably high, high) using the Navigation Guide framework for the human studies included in our case series. Risk of bias designations for individual studies and the justification for each study is provided in Lam et al. Note: ++ indicates low, + indicates probably low, - indicates probably high, -- indicates high. Figure S2. Results from sensitivity analysis of risk of bias judgments (good, adequate, deficient, critically deficient) using the IRIS framework for the human studies included in our case series. The justification for risk of bias designations for individual studies are provided in Tables S2-S16. Note: ++ indicates good, + indicates adequate, - indicates deficient, -- indicates critically deficient. Instructions for making risk of bias determinations using OHAT framework. Instructions for making risk of bias determinations using TSCA framework. Table S2. Metric Weighting Factors and Range of Weighted Metric Scores for Scoring the Quality of Epidemiology Studies. Table S3. Risk of bias ratings using the Adgent et al. (2014) study Table S4. Risk of bias ratings using the Chao et al. (2011) study Table S5. Risk of bias ratings using the Chen et al. (2014) study Table S6. Risk of bias ratings using the Cowell et al. (2015) study Table S7. Risk of bias ratings using the Eskenazi et al. (2013) study Table S8. Risk of bias ratings using the Gascon et al. (2012) study Table S9. Risk of bias ratings using the Gascon et al. (2011) study Table S10. Risk of bias ratings using the Gump et al. (2014) study Table S11. Risk of bias ratings using the Herbstman et al. (2010) study Table S12. Risk of bias ratings using the Hoffman et al. (2012) study Table S13. Risk of bias ratings using the Lin et al. (2010) study Table S14. Risk of bias ratings using the Roze et al. (2009) study Table S15. Risk of bias ratings using the Sagiv et al. (2015) study Table S16. Risk of bias ratings using the Shy et al. (2011) study Table S17. Risk of bias ratings using the Zhang et al. (2017) study