Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34108165›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews.

Rhea J Rocque, Caroline Beaudoin, Ruth Ndjaboue, Laura Cameron, Louann Poirier-Bergeron, Rose-Alice Poulin-Rheault, Catherine Fallon, Andrea C Tricco, Holly O Witteman

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 428 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
428citing papers in PubMed, 15 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

428 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Effect ofFrontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

368 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Rhea J RocquePrairie Climate Centre, The University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada rhea.rocque@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4548-2229
Caroline BeaudoinFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Ruth NdjaboueFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4716-6505
Laura CameronPrairie Climate Centre, The University of Winnipeg, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.
Louann Poirier-BergeronFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Rose-Alice Poulin-RheaultFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Catherine FallonFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Andrea C TriccoLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-4114-8971
Holly O WittemanFaculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4192-0682

Funding

CIHR FDN-148426
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to develop a systematic synthesis of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change, by synthesising studies' characteristics, climate impacts, health outcomes and key findings.

designWe conducted an overview of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change. We registered our review in PROSPERO (CRD42019145972). No ethical approval was required since we used secondary data. Additional data are not available. DATA SOURCES: On 22 June 2019, we searched Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included systematic reviews that explored at least one health impact of climate change. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We organised systematic reviews according to their key characteristics, including geographical regions, year of publication and authors' affiliations. We mapped the climate effects and health outcomes being studied and synthesised major findings. We used a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to assess the quality of studies.

resultsWe included 94 systematic reviews. Most were published after 2015 and approximately one-fifth contained meta-analyses. Reviews synthesised evidence about five categories of climate impacts; the two most common were meteorological and extreme weather events. Reviews covered 10 health outcome categories; the 3 most common were (1) infectious diseases, (2) mortality and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular or neurological outcomes. Most reviews suggested a deleterious impact of climate change on multiple adverse health outcomes, although the majority also called for more research.

conclusionsMost systematic reviews suggest that climate change is associated with worse human health. This study provides a comprehensive higher order summary of research on health impacts of climate change. Study limitations include possible missed relevant reviews, no meta-meta-analyses, and no assessment of overlap. Future research could explore the potential explanations between these associations to propose adaptation and mitigation strategies and could include broader sociopsychological health impacts of climate change.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeHumansSystematic Reviews as Topicpublic healthsocial medicine

Identifiers

PMID34108165
PMCPMC8191619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.