Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35794579›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2022

Towards a framework for systematic reviews of the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors.

Frank Pega, Natalie C Momen, Lisa Bero, Paul Whaley

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Extreme weather events and postoperative outcomes: is it possible to understand what we have not measured?Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Towards the year 2049: The next 25 years of occupational health and safety research.Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Frank PegaDepartment of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland. pegaf@who.int.ORCID 0000-0002-6893-9925
Natalie C MomenDepartment of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Avenue Appia 20, 1202, Geneva, Switzerland.
Lisa BeroGeneral Internal Medicine/Public Health/Center for Bioethics and Humanities, University of Colorado-Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA.
Paul WhaleyLancaster Environment Center, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK.

Funding

World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exposure prevalence studies (as here defined) record the prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors to human health. Applying systematic review methods to the synthesis of these studies would improve the rigour and transparency of normative products produced based on this evidence (e.g., exposure prevalence estimates). However, a dedicated framework, including standard methods and tools, for systematically reviewing exposure prevalence studies has yet to be created. We describe the need for this framework and progress made towards it through a series of such systematic reviews that the World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization conducted for their WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates).We explain that existing systematic review frameworks for environmental and occupational health cannot be directly applied for the generation of exposure prevalence estimates because they seek to synthesise different types of evidence (e.g., intervention or exposure effects on health) for different purposes (e.g., identify intervention effectiveness or exposure toxicity or carcinogenicity). Concepts unique to exposure prevalence studies (e.g., "expected heterogeneity": the real, non-spurious variability in exposure prevalence due to exposure changes over space and/or time) also require new assessment methods. A framework for systematic reviews of prevalence of environmental and occupational exposures requires adaptation of existing methods (e.g., a standard protocol) and development of new tools or approaches (e.g., for assessing risk of bias and certainty of a body of evidence, including exploration of expected heterogeneity).As part of the series of systematic reviews for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates, the World Health Organization collaborating with partners has created a preliminary framework for systematic reviews of prevalence studies of exposures to occupational risk factors. This included development of protocol templates, data extraction templates, a risk of bias assessment tool, and an approach for assessing certainty of evidence in these studies. Further attention and efforts are warranted from scientific and policy communities, especially exposure scientists and policy makers, to establish a standard framework for comprehensive and transparent systematic reviews of studies estimating prevalence of exposure to environmental and occupational risk factors, to improve estimates, risk assessments and guidelines.

Indexed as

Occupational ExposureHumansPrevalenceRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSystematic Reviews as TopicEnvironmental healthExposuresOccupational healthPrevalenceSystematic review methodsSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID35794579
PMCPMC9258093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.