Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33798823›Full record

ArticleEnvironment international2021

Reviews in environmental health: How systematic are they?

Patrice Sutton, Nicholas Chartres, Swati D G Rayasam, Natalyn Daniels, Juleen Lam, Eman Maghrbi, Tracey J Woodruff

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Environment international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Patrice SuttonUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States. Electronic address: patrice.sutton@ucsf.edu.
Nicholas ChartresUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States. Electronic address: nicholas.chartres@ucsf.edu.
Swati D G RayasamUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States. Electronic address: swati.rayasam@ucsf.edu.
Natalyn DanielsUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States.
Juleen LamDepartment of Health Sciences, California State University East Bay, SF 533, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd, Hayward, CA 94542, United States. Electronic address: juleen.lam@csueastbay.edu.
Eman MaghrbiDepartment of Health Sciences, California State University East Bay, SF 533, 25800 Carlos Bee Blvd, Hayward, CA 94542, United States. Electronic address: emaghrbi@horizon.csueastbay.edu.
Tracey J WoodruffUCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology & Reproductive Sciences, Box 0132, 490 Illinois Street, Floor 10, San Francisco, CA 94143, United States. Electronic address: tracey.woodruff@ucsf.edu.

Funding

The UCSF Pregnancy Exposures to Environmental Chemicals (PEEC) Children's CenterP01ES022841 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI WOODRUFF, TRACEY J. · 2013 to 2018
$3.9M
NIEHS NIH HHS P01 ES022841
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSynthesizing environmental health science is crucial to taking action to protect public health. Procedures for evidence evaluation and integration are transitioning from "expert-based narrative" to "systematic" review methods. However, little is known about the methodology being utilized for either type of review.

objectivesTo appraise the methodological strengths and weaknesses of a sample of "expert-based narrative" and "systematic" reviews in environmental health.

methodsWe conducted a comprehensive search of multiple databases and identified relevant reviews using pre-specified eligibility criteria. We applied a modified version of the Literature Review Appraisal Toolkit (LRAT) to three environmental health topics that assessed the utility, validity and transparency of reviews.

resultsWe identified 29 reviews published between 2003 and 2019, of which 13 (45%) were self-identified as systematic reviews. Across every LRAT domain, systematic reviews received a higher percentage of "satisfactory" ratings compared to non-systematic reviews. In eight of these domains, there was a statistically significant difference observed between the two types of reviews and "satisfactory" ratings. Non-systematic reviews performed poorly with the majority receiving an "unsatisfactory" or "unclear" rating in 11 of the 12 domains. Systematic reviews performed poorly in six of the 12 domains; 10 (77%) did not state the reviews objectives or develop a protocol; eight (62%) did not state the roles and contribution of the authors, or evaluate the internal validity of the included evidence consistently using a valid method; and only seven (54%) stated a pre-defined definition of the evidence bar on which their conclusions were based, or had an author disclosure of interest statement. DISCUSSION: Systematic reviews produced more useful, valid, and transparent conclusions compared to non-systematic reviews, but poorly conducted systematic reviews were prevalent. Ongoing development and implementation of empirically based systematic review methods are required in environmental health to ensure transparent and timely decision making to protect the public's health.

Indexed as

Environmental HealthResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicBiasEnvironmental healthHazard identificationMethodsRisk assessmentSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33798823
PMCPMC8118386

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.