ReviewEnvironmental sciences Europe2021
Methodological limitations in studies assessing the effects of environmental and socioeconomic variables on the spread of COVID-19: a systematic review.
Review in Environmental sciences Europe, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Predictive Models for Forecasting Public Health Scenarios: Practical Experiences Applied during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Potential limitations in systematic review studies assessing the effect of the main intervention for treatment/therapy of COVID-19 patients: An overview.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Understanding socioeconomic inequalities in COVID-19 vaccination: controlling endogenous selection in Cali, Colombia.International journal of health geographics · 2025Article
- Comparison of the rate of healthcare encounters for influenza from source-specific PMJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2025Article
- Association of inflammation and protein carbamylation in patients with COVID-19.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Pathogenic built environment? Reflections on modeling spatial determinants of health in urban settings considering the example of COVID-19 studies.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Spatiotemporal dynamics of epidemiology diseases: mobility based risk and short-term prediction modeling of COVID-19.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Leveraging new methodologies for public health crisis management.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The influence of meteorological factors on COVID-19 spread in Italy during the first and second wave.Environmental research · 2023Article
- Neighborhood Socioeconomic Characteristics Associated with the COVID-19 Incidence in Elementary School Children: An Ecological Study in Osaka City, Japan.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Uncovering COVID-19 infection determinants in Portugal: towards an evidence-based spatial susceptibility index to support epidemiological containment policies.International journal of health geographics · 2023Article
- Combining aggregate and individual-level data to estimate individual-level associations between air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- COVID-19 and deprivation amplification: An ecological study of geographical inequalities in mortality in England.Health & place · 2022Article
- Air quality index variation before and after the onset of COVID-19 pandemic: a comprehensive study on 87 capital, industrial and polluted cities of the world.Environmental sciences Europe · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile numerous studies have assessed the effects of environmental (meteorological variables and air pollutants) and socioeconomic variables on the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic, many of them, however, have significant methodological limitations and errors that could call their results into question. Our main objective in this paper is to assess the methodological limitations in studies that evaluated the effects of environmental and socioeconomic variables on the spread of COVID-19. MAIN BODY: We carried out a systematic review by conducting searches in the online databases PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus up to December 31, 2020. We first excluded those studies that did not deal with SAR-CoV-2 or COVID-19, preprints, comments, opinion or purely narrative papers, reviews and systematic literature reviews. Among the eligible full-text articles, we then excluded articles that were purely descriptive and those that did not include any type of regression model. We evaluated the risk of bias in six domains: confounding bias, control for population, control of spatial and/or temporal dependence, control of non-linearities, measurement errors and statistical model. Of the 5631 abstracts initially identified, we were left with 132 studies on which to carry out the qualitative synthesis. Of the 132 eligible studies, we evaluated 63.64% of the studies as high risk of bias, 19.70% as moderate risk of bias and 16.67% as low risk of bias.
conclusionsAll the studies we have reviewed, to a greater or lesser extent, have methodological limitations. These limitations prevent conclusions being drawn concerning the effects environmental (meteorological and air pollutants) and socioeconomic variables have had on COVID-19 outcomes. However, we dare to argue that the effects of these variables, if they exist, would be indirect, based on their relationship with social contact. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12302-021-00550-7.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.