Exposure range matters: considering non-linear associations in the meta-analysis of environmental pollutant exposure using examples of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances and birth outcomes.

Abstract

Meta-analysis is a powerful analytic method for summarizing effect estimates across studies. However, conventional meta-analysis often assumes a linear exposure-outcome relationship and does not account for variability over the exposure ranges. In this work, we first used simulation techniques to illustrate that the linear-based meta-analytical approach may result in oversimplistic effect estimation based on three plausible non-linear exposure-outcome curves (S-shape, inverted U-shape, and M-shape). We showed that subgroup meta-analysis that stratifies on exposure levels can investigate non-linearity and identify the consistency of effect magnitudes in these simulated examples. Next, we examined the heterogeneity of effect estimates across exposure ranges in two published linear-based meta-analyses of prenatal exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) on changes in mean birth weight or risk of preterm birth. The re-analysis found some varying effect sizes and potential heterogeneity when restricting to different PFAS exposure ranges, but findings were sensitive to the cut-off choices used to rank the exposure levels. Finally, we discussed methodological challenges and recommendations for detecting and interpreting potential non-linear associations in meta-analysis. Using meta-analysis without accounting for exposure range could contribute to literature inconsistency for exposure-induced health effects and impede evidence-based policymaking. Therefore, investigating result heterogeneity by exposure range is recommended.