Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28988407›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2017

Accountability Studies on Air Pollution and Health: the HEI Experience.

Hanna Boogaard, Annemoon M van Erp, Katherine D Walker, Rashid Shaikh

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. How Do Household Energy Transitions Work?Research report (Health Effects Institute) · 2025
    Article
  4. Natural Experiments: An Efficient Tool for Population Respiratory Health Evaluation.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Article
  5. Reductions in Respiratory Hospital Visits after a Coal Coking Plant Closure: A Natural Experiment.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Impact of lowering fine particulate matter from major emission sources on mortality in Canada: A nationwide causal analysis.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Hanna BoogaardHealth Effects Institute, 75 Federal Street, Suite 1400, Boston, MA, 02110-1817, USA. jboogaard@healtheffects.org.
Annemoon M van ErpHealth Effects Institute, 75 Federal Street, Suite 1400, Boston, MA, 02110-1817, USA.
Katherine D WalkerHealth Effects Institute, 75 Federal Street, Suite 1400, Boston, MA, 02110-1817, USA.
Rashid ShaikhHealth Effects Institute, 75 Federal Street, Suite 1400, Boston, MA, 02110-1817, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewAssessing health effects of air quality interventions is of ever-increasing interest. Given the prominent role Health Effects Institute (HEI) has played in accountability research, this review focuses on HEI's recent experiences, the challenges it has encountered, and provides possible directions for future research. RECENT

findingsMost accountability studies to date have focused on effects of relatively short-term, local-scale, and sometimes temporary interventions. Only a few recent accountability studies have sought to investigate large-scale, multiyear regulatory programs. Common challenges encountered include lack of statistical power, how to account appropriately for background trends in air quality and health, and difficulties in direct attribution of changes in air pollution and health to a single intervention among many regulatory actions. New methods have been developed for accountability research that has shown promise addressing some of those challenges, including use of causal inference methods. These and other approaches that would enhance the attribution of changes in air quality and health directly to an intervention should continue to be further explored. In addition, integration of social and behavioral sciences in accountability research is warranted, and climate related co-benefits and dis-benefits may be considered.

Indexed as

Academies and InstitutesPublic HealthSocial ResponsibilityAir PollutionEnvironmental MonitoringGovernment RegulationHumansAccountabilityActionsAir pollutionHealthInterventionsRegulations

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.