Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30710332›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2019

Does information and communication technologies improve environmental quality in the era of globalization? An empirical analysis.

Abdul Haseeb, Enjun Xia, Shah Saud, Ashfaq Ahmad, Hamid Khurshid

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Digitalization and environment: how does ICT affect enterprise environmental performance?Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Abdul HaseebSchool of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China. abdulhaseeb5288@outlook.com.
Enjun XiaSchool of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China.
Shah SaudSchool of Management and Economics, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China.
Ashfaq AhmadDepartment of Economics, Government College Women University, Sialkot, Pakistan.
Hamid KhurshidDepartment of Management, Lingnan University, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study intends to examine the impact of ICTs (i.e., internet usage and mobile cellular subscriptions), globalization, electricity consumption, financial development, and economic growth on environmental quality by using 1994-2014 panel data of BRICS economies. This study employed a second-generation panel unit root test accounting for the presence of cross-sectional dependence and indicated that carbon dioxide emissions, electricity consumption, financial development, internet usage, mobile usage, globalization, and economic growth have integration of order one. The results from Westerlund panel co-integration test confirms that the variables are co-integrated and revealed that ICT-finance-globalization-electricity-GDP-CO

Indexed as

CommunicationEconomic DevelopmentEnvironmentInternationalityCarbon DioxideCross-Sectional StudiesElectricityInternetCarbon DioxideDynamic seemingly unrelated regression (DSUR)Environmental qualityGlobalizationICTsInternet usageMobile cellular subscriptions

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.