SynthesisEnvironmental health perspectives2023
Evidence Synthesis of Observational Studies in Environmental Health: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Review on Traffic-Related Air Pollution.
Synthesis in Environmental health perspectives, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Long-term exposure to elemental carbon and disease incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2025Pooled it
- Occupational Benzene Exposure and Lung Cancer in Human Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Pooled it
- Long-Term Exposure to Nitrogen Dioxide and Ozone and Mortality: Update of the WHO Air Quality Guidelines Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of public health · 2024Pooled it
- Long-Term Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution and Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of public health · 2023Pooled it
- Expert perspectives on exposure-response functions for urban health policy: Lessons from a UBDPolicy workshop.Environmental research · 2026Review
- Comparison of Long-Term Air Pollution Exposure from Mobile and Routine Monitoring, Low-Cost Sensors, and Dispersion Models.Research report (Health Effects Institute) · 2025Article
- Epidemiological criteria for causation applied to human health harms from RF-EMF exposure: Bradford Hill revisited.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
- Response to "Comment on 'Evidence Synthesis of Observational Studies in Environmental Health: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Review on Traffic-Related Air Pollution'".Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- Comment on "Evidence Synthesis of Observational Studies in Environmental Health: Lessons Learned from a Systematic Review on Traffic-Related Air Pollution".Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- Invited Perspective: Systematic Review for Environmental Pollutants-A Work in Progress.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is a long tradition in environmental health of using frameworks for evidence synthesis, such as those of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for its Integrated Science Assessments and the International Agency for Research on Cancer Monographs. The framework, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), was developed for evidence synthesis in clinical medicine. The U.S. Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) elaborated an approach for evidence synthesis in environmental health building on GRADE.
methodsWe applied a modified OHAT approach and a broader "narrative" assessment to assess the level of confidence in a large systematic review on traffic-related air pollution and health outcomes. DISCUSSION: We discuss several challenges with the OHAT approach and its implementation and suggest improvements for synthesizing evidence from observational studies in environmental health. We consider the determination of confidence using a formal rating scheme of up- and downgrading of certain factors, the treatment of every factor as equally important, and the lower initial confidence rating of observational studies to be fundamental issues in the OHAT approach. We argue that some observational studies can offer high-confidence evidence in environmental health. We note that heterogeneity in magnitude of effect estimates should generally not weaken the confidence in the evidence, and consistency of associations across study designs, populations, and exposure assessment methods may strengthen confidence in the evidence. We mention that publication bias should be explored beyond statistical methods and is likely limited when large and collaborative studies comprise most of the evidence and when accrued over several decades. We propose to identify possible key biases, their most likely direction, and their potential impacts on the results. We think that the OHAT approach and other GRADE-type frameworks require substantial modification to align better with features of environmental health questions and the studies that address them. We emphasize that a broader, "narrative" evidence assessment based on the systematic review may complement a formal GRADE-type evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11532.
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.