Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32467626›Full record

ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2020

Advancing systematic-review methodology in exposure science for environmental health decision making.

Elaine A Cohen Hubal, Jessica J Frank, Rebecca Nachman, Michelle Angrish, Nicole C Deziel, Meridith Fry, Rogelio Tornero-Velez, Andrew Kraft, Emma Lavoie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors.

Elaine A Cohen HubalOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA. Hubal.elaine@epa.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9650-3483
Jessica J FrankTetra Tech Inc, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Rebecca NachmanOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Michelle AngrishOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Nicole C DezielEnvironmental Health Sciences, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA.
Meridith FryOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Rogelio Tornero-VelezOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Andrew KraftOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.
Emma LavoieOffice of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Intramural EPA EPA999999NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous methodology applied to synthesize and evaluate a body of scientific evidence to answer a research or policy question. Effective use of systematic-review methodology enables use of research evidence by decision makers. In addition, as reliance on systematic reviews increases, the required standards for quality of evidence enhances the policy relevance of research. Authoritative guidance has been developed for use of SR to evaluate evidence in the fields of medicine, social science, environmental epidemiology, toxicology, as well as ecology and evolutionary biology. In these fields, SR is typically used to evaluate a cause-effect relationship, such as the effect of an intervention, procedure, therapy, or exposure on an outcome. However, SR is emerging to be a useful methodology to transparently review and integrate evidence for a wider range of scientifically informed decisions and actions across disciplines. As SR is being used more broadly, there is growing consensus for developing resources, guidelines, ontologies, and technology to make SR more efficient and transparent, especially for handling large amounts of diverse data being generated across multiple scientific disciplines. In this article, we advocate for advancing SR methodology as a best practice in the field of exposure science to synthesize exposure evidence and enhance the value of exposure studies. We discuss available standards and tools that can be applied and extended by exposure scientists and highlight early examples of SRs being developed to address exposure research questions. Finally, we invite the exposure science community to engage in further development of standards and guidance to grow application of SR in this field and expand the opportunities for exposure science to inform environment and public health decision making.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthSystematic Reviews as TopicDecision MakingEcologyHumansPublic HealthEnvironmental healthExposure assessmentResearch synthesisRisk assessmentStudy designSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32467626
PMCPMC8215717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.