ArticleEnvironmental health : a global access science source2024
The CHANGE (Climate Health ANalysis Grading Evaluation) tool for weight of evidence reviews on climate change and health research.
Article in Environmental health : a global access science source, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extreme weather events and mental health impacts in West Africa: A systematic review of evidence gaps.Journal of public health in Africa · 2026Review
- Changing Degrees: a weight-of-evidence scoping review examining the impact of childhood exposures to climate change on educational outcomes.Environmental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClimate change has been identified as one of the biggest threats to human health. Despite this claim, there are no standardized tools that assess the rigor of published literature for use in weight of evidence (WOE) reviews. Standardized assessment tools are essential for creating clear and comparable WOE reviews. As such, we developed a standardized tool for evaluating the quality of climate change and health studies focused on evaluating studies that quantify exposure-response relationships and studies that implement and/or evaluate adaptation interventions.
methodsThe authors explored systematic-review methodology to enhance transparency and increase efficiency in summarizing and synthesizing findings from studies on climate change and health research. The authors adapted and extended existing WOE methods to develop the CHANGE (Climate Health ANalysis Grading Evaluation) tool. The resulting assessment tool has been refined through application and subsequent team input.
resultsThe CHANGE tool is a two-step standardized tool for systematic review of climate change and health studies of exposure-response relationships and adaptation intervention studies. Step one of the CHANGE tool aims to classify studies included in weight-of-evidence reviews and step two assesses the quality and presence of bias in the climate change and health studies.
conclusionThe application of the CHANGE tool in WOE reviews of climate change and health will lead to increased comparability, objectivity, and transparency within this research area.
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.